Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay (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 keep per WP:SNOW (enough keeps in a short time to justify). Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay

Reason the page should be deleted So I think that Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay should be deleted as soon as possible. The entire article is filled with opinions (Turn-based games are difficult to master, Sitting around and waiting for turns to end is boring, etc...). Yes it has many sources, but there is no point of having a source of an opinion. And this article just doesn't fit in wikipedia, there already exists a real time games and a turn-based games article so why should you compare these two in one article?--Megaman en m (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not going to say that this article doesn't have its shares of problems, but I don't think that they're insurmountable. While it isn't universal across the sources, most of them do delve into a comparison of the two; I think its a perfectly appropriate topic. Issues that aren't intrinsic to the subject are best kept at the article and resolved through the normal editing process. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A comparison article can be very useful and there are hundreds of them in the project (see Special:AllPages/Comparison). The article does need cleanup, particularly more prose to place the debate in context and provide history. I also find it to be surprisingly balanced and NPOV, which is an excellent start, even if some of the reasons are poor arguments. Dcoetzee 09:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This appears to actually be a first nomination, not a 2nd. I find no evidence of a first nomination (no Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Real-time_vs._turn-based_gameplay, no talk page box, nothing I could find in the history). It was nominated for speedy deletion once, but that's different. Dcoetzee 09:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I guess it will have to stay. But this article needs help. First of all it should be called "Comparison between Real-time and turn-based gameplay" instead of something I would expect from a boxing match. Secondly, the list should go. Or it should be merged into two paragraphs. And last but not least, the neutrality, especially from the list. I mean "Sitting around and waiting for turns to end is boring"? You're not going to tell me that that's a fact? So does anyone have any objections against these changes I want to make?--Megaman en m (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Be BOLD. No one's going to rape you. :) Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article in its current form is OK. There are certainly other articles on Wikipedia about differences in opinion. The list merely reproduces statements made in reliable sources and is clear about labeling them as opinions, not facts. This is exactly what we're supposed to do. We can't just go around making things up. It seems to me you just disagree with the article because it doesn't present your own personal opinions.
Lastly, just because a topic is controversial doesn't mean Wikipedia should refrain from having an article on the subject. That's called censorship. SharkD (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Also, it's proper practice to notify the creater of an article about deletion. Please remember that next time. SharkD (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Megamans first AfD nomination. It's quite understandable to miss one of all the places an AfD should be listed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The title, I agree, is unwieldy, but this article seems adequately referenced to sources that are reliable enough in the context. The opinions given are the sources' rather than the author's. We have articles on real-time strategy, real-time tactics, turn-based strategy, and turn-based tactics. There might be merger candidates among all of these video game related articles, but this AfD is not the place to discuss it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to game mechanic. I'm somewhat concerned about the WP:OR level in this, but in general it doesn't seem to need to exist other than as a discussion within the notion of game mechanics. Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a definate topic. Opinions are labeled as opinions and are sourced. It also would be a shame to delete this article since it is actually interesting and easy to understand, in contrast to some others on WP. Keep the title since googlers might be looking for a discussion of exactly this topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep maybe there's a better name, but it seems to me that the article's creators identified a notable area of debate within the video game world. I might suggest a merge to strategy video game if the article lacks sufficient context. Otherwise, representing notable points of view is entirely consistent with WP:NPOV and not reason for deletion. Randomran (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable game mechanic that has been covered in too many reviews to count in the last 20 years. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 10 November 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.