Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenTTD

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 02:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTTD

[edit]
OpenTTD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article does not show how this game passes the notability threshold (WP:N), nor does it provide any references from reliable, independent sources (WP:V). Sourcing is difficult through a web search due to the large number of download sites and forum chatter amongst the hits, I certainly couldn't see anything appropriate through the first 10 pages or so. Prod with these concerns was contested with the paradoxical comment "It might lose at {AfD", so here we are. Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yea, in a brief review of google hits, most of them are forum & blog based, so yes, it's difficult to find great sources. However, the fact that it does bring back hundreds of sites and more than a quarter million hits indicates to me that this is a notable game based upon its apparently very large following. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:GOOGLE - a large number of hits does not equate to the existence of reliable sources or notability. As per Marasmusine, third-party, non-forum, non-blog sources are needed to establish the notability of this. --MASEM 13:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were just a large number of hits, then I'd agree. However, it's not a large number of hits just mentioning the project; it's a large number of individuals actually discussing the subject. I take issue with the principle that something has to be picked up by mainstream reviewers to be notable. Verifibility is difficult here, but notability is not. WP:GOOGLE, which you refernece, backs this up in a backhanded way, when it states Google hit counts... "only rarely "prove" anything about notability..." - it doesn't say that it can't, it just says that it is rare. I think this is one of those instances. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that security advisories count towards notability. VG ☎ 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure they do. No one issues security advisories on software that no one uses. Doesn't mean it's Firefox or AutoCAD, but it's still something. At the absolute minimum, it's equivalent in credibility to MarketWatch or BusinessWire press release--someone in the company announces a new version with a security bug in the old one, and puts out a release that's picked up by press release aggregation services. However, SecurityFocus does independent verification on the submissions and assigns their own severity scores, meaning that an independent reliable source exercised editorial control over that press release, and then published a page/document/advisory exclusively about that issue. That adds up to independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage in my book. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. Getting some free software included in Fedora/Debian/OpenSuse is relatively trivial, and bares no relationship to how often the software is used, but guarantees that security-related bugs in such software will result in an official advisory. VG ☎ 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at the very least Merge. The game in question is based on Transport_Tycoon an undisputedly notable game. That the game was reverse engineered, an open-source engine rewritten for it, and 13 years later it remains in development isn't exactly commonplace. Finding a source that meets the political notability standard is indeed difficult.Booklegger (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and sorry for the crap edit summary. Finger slipped before I'd finished the sentence.Booklegger (talk)
  • delete despite the fans. Not many mentionns in reliable sources. [2]Sticky Parkin 01:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In fact "getting some free software in Fedora/Debian/OpenSuSE" and then just "publishing" a security bug is barely an easy thing. For a start, most of these repositories differentiate programs by their supportability value. Security advisories are in fact made for quite a small number of programs. Human resources of security team are pretty limited and security advisory must mean that even within such security team the application is considered notable and important enough to bother creating an advisory. For example, in Debian world, there's separation between "main" (supported software), "universe" (non really supported free software) and "multiverse" (not supported non-free). There are almost no security advisories on anything besides "main" repository. Moreover, security advisories are only made for stable distributions released long ago. This means that the package must not only make its way to the most supported repository, but also stay there for a long time to "generate" some advisories. So, I deeply believe that advisories are in fact a very good source to show notability. Also, search on a google books yields at least 1 published book: Changing the Game: How Video Games Are Transforming the Future of Business By David Edery, Ethan Mollick praises OpenTTD's interface as a unique example of good presentation of business data and discusses the usage of such design in business applications. The game was nominated at Best of 2005 awards by drobe launchpad, meaning it was a notable contribution to the RISC OS platform in 2005. There's an independent review of OpenTTD[3] at xpressd.com portal. Last, but not least, this article bears a massive list of interwikis. I guess it all makes a lot of references, although now we must work harder to incorporate them in the article. --GreyCat (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OpenTTD has also been awarded the "Hungarian Unix Poral" readers award in 2005 and 2007 (both times first place). Would OpenTTD getting a few hundred euros within a day in a fundraiser (two times) been seen as notable? 85.149.88.77 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a large German forum I could immediately find [4], youtube lists 76 Videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.108.122.254 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC) — 134.108.122.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - having a bug report issued about it is no more a claim of notability than me having my telephone number in the local directory. Having a forum and youtube videos aren't claims of notability. So let's take a look at xpressd.com and drobe. I've not come across them before, so what is this community's opinion of them with regards to WP:Reliable sources (Do they have a reputation for fact-checking - is there editorial oversight?) Marasmusine (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to a section of Transport_Tycoon. The award link [5] claims that OpenTTD is not a standalone game since you need the original game data to play it. Regarding the other source, xpressd is personal web site [6]. There isn't enough coverage in WP:RS for a separate article. VG ☎ 10:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)(changed to keep)[reply]

  • Comment - currently OpenTTD does not require the original game data anymore; there are replacements for the graphics and the sound and music is optional. There's however no "notable" source that tells this. 85.149.88.77 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To augment my above keep rationale, I note that there exist Google Scholar refs... but not in English. Can anyone read them and appraise how much they contribute? Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Create a new section for this on the Transport Tycoon with any information not already included - which I don't think is a lot - in the section for this. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The way I see it, OpenTTD is one of the most notable projects listed at "List of open source games". 255,000 Google results, several magazine and Google Scholar articles ("OpenTTD: Open source hauls the classic Transport Tycoon Delux game into the future", TUX Magazine, June 2006, pages 44-46)), ongoing development, seemingly strong fanbase... The lack of extensive mainstream media coverage is really not a good reason at all: in cases of niche freeware projects like this it is extremely rare and mustn't serve as an indicator of their success. Frankly, I don't see why you would decide to target this particular page in the first place. Is Wikipedia running out of space? Just go to Special:Random and start deleting. The first 5 random searches returned Owen's_Market, Rope_(unit), Newbie, Liero, and StudlyCaps - each of which seems like a much obvious and appropriate candidate for erasure, if you ask me. Note: although I did find the mentioned listing and the page in question itself rather helpful, I have no personal affiliation with the project whatsoever. Rankiri (talk)
Comment - I did that Special:Random thing. Going on your theory, London - which was the second one to come up - should be deleted. Also, Google hits don't count as verification of notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Also - Why does this have an article, but not any of the Service Packs for Windows XP? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because TTDPatch relates to Transport Tycoon Deluxe in the way OS/2 relates to Windows 3.x (OS/2 patched Windows 3.x on the fly, TTDPatch patches Transport Tycoon Deluxe on the fly) and OpenTTD relates to Transport Tycoon Deluxe in the way Windows XP relates to Windows 3.x (OpenTTD has many core technology changes w.r.t. Transport Tycoon Deluxe and Windows XP has many core technology changes w.r.t. Windows 3.x e.g. a completely new network stack (for both)). That immediatelly would make me ask the question: why a page for each version of Windows, shouldn't those be merged? 85.149.88.77 (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: The point of what I was saying is that there are literally hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles that discuss subjects much less notable and considerably worse sourced than this one. How is this not about double standards and bad prioritizing? I mean, if you bother to look at the list of open source games I just mentioned, you'll see that in if OpenTDD really deserves deletion, so do practically all of them. Yet I fail to see such a discussion on, say, FreeCol or Egoboo. What purpose would it serve to delete all of them, anyway? Surely, I wasn't the only person who found the list helpful. And for the Google argument, I managed to find a perfectly neutral magazine article in less than a minute. Dismissing 250,000+ search results with dozens of independent reviews and hundreds of specific blog and minor site entries in a discussion of notability seems just plain unreasonable in my view. Particularly when when original "Transport Tycoon Deluxe" -openttd gets only 280,000 results by itself. The last point: regardless of the fact that WinXP Service packs are already on Wikipedia, they mere fixes and updates to the original product. Considering that OpenTTD does not even require the game it was based upon, I fail to see any possible relevance of such a comparison. Rankiri (talk)
It is not the number of hits Google gets on a subject that determines notability, but the quality of its sources thereof. Also not the common WP:WAX deletion pitfall. If other articles have similar problems, then they will be dealt with in due time. However, right now, we are dealing with this article. MuZemike (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles mentioned have been proposed for deletion and nominated for deletion, respectively. Thanks for letting us know. MuZemike (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a problem about notability with this page. If there is a lack of sources and action must be taken then strip the page back to what information can be verified, but don't delete. Mattlore (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "OpenTTD" does not have "250,000"+ search results. It has 512 hits (and 599 for "open ttd"). Getting excited about the big number on the first page is exactly why it shouldn't be used in these discussions. Rankiri, can you provide a link to the "perfectly neutral magazine article"? We've also had the classic "well these other articles exist..." Please bare in mind that the closing admin will recognize that this is not a factor. Marasmusine (talk) 08:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just for comparison using the same metric: Wikipedia has 689 hits. For OpenTTD it's quite hard to find everything because even though it is called "OpenTTD" people write it also as "Open TTD" and "Open Transport Tycoon (Deluxe)" 85.149.88.77 (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure: www.aurovillenetwork.in/download_center/books/tux_magazine/tux014.pdf Rankiri (talk)
  • Maybe Oldmans_Township_School_District, Blue Dragon 2, and Delta Force: Angel Falls should be deleted (WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING). However, as mentioned before, we are not talking about other articles - we are talking about THIS ONE! If you are asking me to define notability, I am not a dictionary. However, I can certainly give my view of this crucial official Wikipedia policy. I believe that articles establish notability through proof thereof in reliable sources. My interpretation of the portion of policy you quoted is that such reliable sources just need to exist for inclusion of an article; they don't necessarily have to be cited; surely, many article that come of AfD that are kept are because someone either (a) did not see that reliable independent sources providing significant coverage exist but was later to be found, or (b) no one looked for them. Given that I have not given my !vote on the article yet, I cannot find any right now via a simple Google search that would be considered verifiable secondary sources. MuZemike (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe? If you don't know what notability is, perhaps it is not up to you to enforce it. This debate is relevant to all such articles. If you delete OpenTTD without any good reason, what will stop you from deleting something I do care about in the same manner? Regardless, I already gave you one magazine article from a third-party source. Since I've apparently become the sole official source finder for the page, here's another one:
  • What further proof of notability would be appropriate for you? Encyclopædia Britannica? It doesn't deal with unfinished freeware. Oxford dictionary? Same here. Gamespot or IGN? Both deal almost exclusively with high-profile titles and practically never cover small projects like this one. As for my examples, what I meant to say that OpenTTD actually seems to have more sources than a good portion of Wikipedia's articles, not that it's similar to one or two of them that didn't receive similar treatment. I don't see how WP:WAX can relate, particularly when it specifically says "they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this". So what about the official policy on unreleased/unfinished popular software that verifiably exists but -for quite obvious reasons- hasn't been covered by any highest quality publications as of now? And what of "If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable"? As with the previously mentioned magazine source, you're practically ignoring my some of perfectly valid arguments and keep shoving all my secondary observations under the tent of WP:ATA. Let me do the same and point you to WP:BASH. Rankiri (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Don't tell me that I don't know what notability is; I am well aware of the policy. I am not going to read or interpret the policy for you. I expect users to read and follow that and similar policies and guidelines within reason and with reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, I do not delete articles; as you should know, that is the job of administrators to make that decision of whether to delete or not. I will throw one more guideline at you, and that is assume good faith. No one is out to get you or your OpenTTD community. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my belief that reduction of each argument to WP:ATA (as well as baseless accusations of WP:COI) is not an acceptable way to argue, and I partially demonstrated the validity of that belief by pointing you to WP:BASH. Let me assure you, I was quite dispassionate in that response. To finalize, I'm glad you finally agreed with some of my reasoning. Until next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just on the sources part. If you brought that (that is, the two magazine articles) to the table first, then it would have saved a lot of arguing and carpal tunnel from typing. Oh, well. MuZemike (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup— With everything said above, despite the spurious other reasons to keep, etc., etc., the article does has enough coverage via independent reliable sources (see magazine articles above) to satisfy the WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The review form TUX magazine is comprehensive (please add it to the article as well). Together with the other sources (which aren't that in-depth), it's sufficient to establish notability in my view. VG ☎ 21:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Jclemens, Greycat et al. Notability seems evident and sources are available. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the TUX and Full Circle magazine coverage (although the latter is perhaps too technical to use as a source, it is at least coverage.) I'm pleased to be able to change my opinion to keep. Marasmusine (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator appears to have accepted the reliability and independence of the magazines dug up, and I agree. Hopefully someone can take the time to integrate those into the article, building up a development or reception section. Good, productive discussion everyone. Randomran (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/OpenTTD&oldid=1138186225"