Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egoboo (video game)

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. (non-admin closure) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egoboo (video game)

Egoboo (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Declined WP:PROD as the article has been nominated before - see the fairly inconclusive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egoboo (computer game). Views welcome, having regard for those expressed in that earlier debate. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've heard of this, but sources are pretty thin. In a WP:VG/RS custom Google search, I found this Polish review, but that's about it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A quick google search provided me with these reviews: Zefz (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
   * Blog from roguelikedeveloper
   * Linux dev center
   * Software Informer
  • Comment. I think one of the reasons this is up here, is because Egoboo was really popular in early 2000s. It was one of the first big 3D games that was open-source and free, which was also a part of the Linux repository (most freeware games around that time seemed to be simple 2D platformer games and most were not open source). I can't find the sources for this claim however, it seems they are removed from the internet. Zefz (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Unless offline or non-English sources are found, all available sourcing on this topic is sparse:
    • http://www.insidemacgames.com/news/story.php?ArticleID=8356
    • http://www.gamer.nl/nieuws/9299/egoboo-alpha-is-downloadbaar
    • http://www.gamershell.com/news_304.html
    • http://www.gamestar.pl/ftp/egoboo.linux.html
This is not nearly enough to substantiate a full article. However, if the Linux Dev Center review (O'Reilly Media) counts as reliable, there should be enough for at least a worthy stubicle. I'm not convinced that the Blogspot review is reliable. czar ♔ 20:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Prod nominator. If the only hit on WP:VG/RS is this short entry, it doesn't seem to suffice. However, Linux Dev rev presented by Czar seems decent, but I'd like to hear from VG/RS experts before reconsidering my vote. One decent review doesn't seem like much for notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The development of the game is currently halted, which is why there aren't any new reviews and only older. Should the development be resumed, so would the reviews. The game was sufficiently notable at the time:
   * http://archive09.linux.com/articles/22382
   * http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2003/03/13/egoboo.html
   * http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2003/03/27/egoboo_interview.html
   * http://roguelikedeveloper.blogspot.com/2008/10/review-egoboo.html
   * http://www.tigsource.com/2009/06/06/classic-egoboo/
   * http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/11/04/egoboo-is-a-fun-3d-rogue-like-game-for-windows-mac-and-linux/
   * http://dark.dark-gaming.net/?page_id=216
  • And that's just English sources. --ConCelFan (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linux.com looks like it was freelance at the time with an edit policy, Switched.com is owned by Cnet, and I said above that Linux Dev Center might be okay, but I'm not sure that rest have the hallmarks of reliability. (This said, the few that exist should be enough for the general notability guideline.) czar ♔ 16:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
roguelikedeveloper is Andrew Doull of PCG Wiki and Roguelike Radio.
TIGSource is an indie game journalism website by a group of indie developers, a particularly prominent member of which is Derek Yu of Spelunky fame.
The last source, no established notability.
--ConCelFan (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even with those credentials, I don't see how those sites are reliable without some noted expertise in the topic or editorial oversight czar ♔ 14:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On reliability of TIGSource website:
               * http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/tigsource/
               * http://venuspatrol.com/tag/tigsource-devlog/
--ConCelFan (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Piotrus - the sourcing is just atrocious, both in the article, and everything presented here so far. Not enough reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Block just under the Relisting. --ConCelFan (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's the strongest case, but between the four that I listed (from VGRS search), and Linux Dev Center, Switched, and Linux.com, shouldn't we be good? It's enough to cover a reception, development, and gameplay in fair enough detail czar ♔ 00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ConcelFan - Yeah, I saw them. They're all very obscure. I see no reason that these obscure blogs like "Dark Gaming" meet the definition of a WP:RS. Czar - All of the sources are rather "borderline", or not discussing the subject in any sort of significant detail. "Inside Mac Games" or "Switched" are only a few sentences on the actual subject. Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've admitted "Dark Gaming" not to have an established notability but for others, it's either sufficiently notable website or author. From the block's listing there are: 2 interviews and 4 reviews (last one not counted). --ConCelFan (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't subscribe to your rationales for others either though. For example, take "Rougelike Developer". Your argument is that this self-published blogspot is reliable because the author, of who you've used a wordpress to identify his reliability, runs a wiki and a podcast? That's way off base as to how one would identify a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid. There are minuscule amounts of Roguelike-covering websites out there. And there still isn't a person to have an article on Wikipedia that is considered a Roguelike expert, from what I can tell. Considering the merits, that would be him. But finding coverage on Roguelike-covering websites and promoters is even harder. --ConCelFan (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, self-published sources can be useful for certain facts. No, the above blog posts aren't that kind of SPS, and even if they were, they wouldn't prove notability, which requires editorial distance: coverage in secondary/independent and reliable sources. I'm not sure this warrants further discussion. The Linux.com and Switched links are debatably acceptable, good finds. The other new links are no bueno, at least for AfD's sake czar ♔ 03:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point entirely. I'm criticizing that you're arguing that a blogspot is reliable because you identified the writer in an interview from a wordpress, and said he's reliable because he has a Wiki and does his own podcast. The fact that you think that this demonstrates reliability shows that your understanding of Wikipedia's definition of reliable is fundamentally flawed. The argument is wrong on so many levels. Sergecross73 msg me 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find Roguelike-covering websites and promoters that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia, I'm all ears. --ConCelFan (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. But that's a rationale for a "delete" !vote, not for using unreliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found an academic mention: http://people.ict.usc.edu/~marsella/publications/IVA-73-Camera.pdf. I agree that most of the sources are borderline, but I also think that they have enough stuff together to make an article—I'd do it if I had the time. czar ♔ 01:20, 15 November 2014 (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/Egoboo_(video_game)&oldid=1137820463"