Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overworld (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus to delete. Editors interested in pursuing a merge are invited to discuss the matter on the relevant talkpages. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 23:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overworld

Has been deleted previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overworld. There seems to be significant conceptual problems with the subject and it doesn't appear to be notable - most of the information in the article is unverifiable, the few bits that are are just illustrative examples. It doesn't appear to be possible to address the subject directly - if you look at the article it basically tries to describe the subject using various examples, the problem being that while some sources may make some mention of an 'overworld' there is no work that focuses on the concept itself. EvilRedEye (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Grudging delete~~ per lack of good sources to accurately describe the subject. I guess if someone is able to dig them up, it can be recreated, as the term is widely used and clearly notable in gaming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly widely used, it's not clearly notable. No-one has written about the concept of the overworld in videogames as far as I can tell. The problem is that 'overworld' is really just a term, rather than a concept. And obviously Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, etc. EvilRedEye (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that. For example, Music, Sound and Multimedia: From the Live to the Virtual Jamie Sexton (Edinburgh University Press- 2008) discusses how there were two distinct states for video game music in the early days: a "underworld" and "overworld" themes, which stressed "happy" and "dangerous" feelings, which has been supplanted as games have grown more complex (5X). How to Make Money Organizing Information by Anne Hart talks about player choices being designed for overworld experiences. Character Design for Mobile Devices (Focal Press -2006) talks about modern overworlds in the limitations of cell phone games. That was all from a google books search. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Sexton doesn't discuss videogame overworlds, he uses the term in passing in a discussion about music. Anne Hart seems to be using the ordinary dictionary meaning of the word and again only touches on the concept in passing. The Focal Press book can't be previewed and again only mentions overworld maps once in passing from what I can glean by searching the book for 'overworld'. EvilRedEye (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the above were "we can use this to make an entire article", I'm just saying that there are references out there. To truly see if there was nothing or not you would have to look for video game history or design books, which will obviously not lend themselves to searching for a term. As I have said, I am fine with deletion now, but I am certain someone with some initiative can bring it up to spec in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's a fairly significant concept in terms of video game design, at least from the 1980s; the problem is just how widely the word "overworld" is used to describe it. Zelda is probably the only game I closely associate the term with; perhaps Rename to World map (video games)? Haikupoet (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it might be a significant concept, it might be a frequently used term, but it appears that people just haven't written about it. It doesn't really help that the term 'overworld' can be used to describe what can be a fairly disparate set of concepts. EvilRedEye (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a rather overly legalistic concept of notability. While I'm still on the fence about the value of keeping this article, something widely spoken of is notable by definition. It's like truth -- is something true because it passes a certain battery of truth tests, or is it true because it actually happened? Haikupoet (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably do, although I'd say you're being overly heuristic. The point is, regardless of whether something is widely spoken of, if there aren't any sources then you can't write about something without it being original research. There hasn't been one source brought to the table that addresses the subject directly. If there aren't any such sources then how can an article of any standard be written on the subject? As for your rhetorical point about truth, I guess Wikipedia would go for the first option, what with Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH, etc. EvilRedEye (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge to Level (computer and video games). I share the reservations expressed above, that while this is a known concept, it's not necessarily something that can be written about beyond a dicdef without descending into gamecruft. It can probably be mentioned somewhere on WP but probably can't hold an article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This actually is prolly the best way to preserve the link, just make a paragraph or so in the above article for overworlds, that much we could probably reference in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Level (computer and video games) - it's a likely search term, so a redirect is suitable here to the relevant mergepoint in the article on Level. I agree that it is a known concept, just incredibly difficult to source. Having said that, I'm not going to advocate WP:IAR here. Gazimoff ^Write _Read 10:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found thisa n informative article, and everyone above seems to think its notable. there's no such thing asgamecruft--unless it means "more details about a game than I think appropriate" I thinkthis well out of that territory.DGG (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: This is a notable topic by many names. Admittedly the article isn't the best written, but that's a reason to fix it rather than delete it. I'd support a merge if someone offered an appropriate place to put it. Putting the overworld under an article on "levels" is kind of misleading, since levels are usually discrete and linear. But surely the person who designs the overworld is a level designer. I have mixed feelings about a merge. Randomran (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I think the over/underworld concept is different than that of linear concept of levels. Hence, it should warrant its own article. MuZemike (talk) 21:19, 18 June 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.