Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boson (computer game) (2nd nomination)
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 delete. Arguments to keep are very unconvincing. Proto::► 13:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Boson (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
Re-listing after a botched bundled nomination on my part. I can't find any evidence of this game being notable as Wikipedia defines it, so I request deletion. ♠PMC♠ 21:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SkierRMH 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) -- SkierRMH 01:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:WEB WP:N--Dacium 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Adverisement - Shaundakulbara 02:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete hobbyist game. — brighterorange (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A Google search for boson strategy game review yielded 9,860 ghits, but a quick check at the first several didn't seem to show reviews by any recognizable strategy gaming websites or publications that might meet WP:RS. It's possible there are legit sources buried in there, so this definitely shouldn't be speedy deleted, but right now no sources have been produced. --Shirahadasha 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Right now it reads like an ad unless some content is added to the article, I agree with its deletion. Someone should still go through the google links to see if proper reviews exist, though. Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: exciting game. Why not improve the article? Causesobad --> Talk) 14:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I can see by the screenshot it is a real game, and somewhere in the world it will have notability. Just because one person hasn't heard of it. Doesn't mean it isn't famous. Retiono Virginian 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Retiono's reason. Shrumster 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:V, WP:RS. Being an "exciting game" isn't exactly a rationale for keeping. See also WP:ILIKEIT. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No verifiable sources or evidence of notability, and the discussion page's argument for keeping is not an assertion of notability but an assertion that the notability requirement should be dropped from Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability. JCO312 19:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:WEB, no assertion of notability, no sources (let alone reliable secondary ones), couldn't find any mention of an award or outside coverage from the website. QuagmireDog 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is web content and is only listed as such within the article, which makes the application of WP:WEB perfectly acceptable. WP:SOFTWARE is just a proposal and not something I would have considered since there was no mention of it being bundled with a linux distribution - my psychic abilities are somewhat diminished today. I would be looking for a pair of reliable secondary sources any which way, so the article isn't a simple recreation of information available from the source without any critical review. A popcorn ranking of blah out of blah doesn't convince me otherwise, a couple of good reviews would, I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation for a game article. QuagmireDog 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly where it says it is web content? "Boson is an open source OpenGL real-time strategy computer game programmed in C++" ... I challenge you to find a web site that uses OpenGL and is written in C++. This isn't an article about Boson's website, this is about a computer game, as indicated in the article title, in case you missed it. The package dependencies sure don't seem to indicate a web browser is required to play. And it's "popcon", not "popcorn", and that condition has been listed unchallenged in the WP:SOFTWARE proposal as an reasonable way to measure the popularity of a software package for quite a while now, we can't expect that to change drastically when WP:SOFTWARE becomes a real content guideline. I'm not expecting you to be a psychic, just use a little bit of common sense and a little bit of diligence, as in reading and understanding what the article covers. This isn't a vote (in a poll, everyone's generally expected to give a completely random inconsequential, misinformation-based vote that won't affect the end result anyway =), This is a discussion where you're supposed to actually examine the case at hand. If you're rejecting WP:SOFTWARE (which is practically being applied every day despite of its status), please at least provide a content guideline that has anything at all to do with the article. We're also not supposed to be concerned about the state of the article; what we have here is the fact that the bit of software is actually somewhat notable and we, thus, may have an article about it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense would dictate that using WP:WEB for material that was unsourced, has a website with a 'download' option (and not just a demo version) and which didn't label itself as part of a 'major distribution of Linux' is a request for notability for a game obtainable on the web, not a random policy or guideline or innability to distinguish between a piece of software and a living person. Trying to make me out as thick as two short planks is not negated by a smiley. WP:WEB is not ideal for software but the notability aspect fits well enough, it's used quite happily on casual games (even to 'keep' ones that have had a boxed version released for retail). "A content guideline that has anything at all to do with the article" it is, that's what I've used it for in the past, unchallenged. I have not seen WP:SOFTWARE used unchallenged in this way as sole reason for keeping an article, nor this popcorn rating being used either, so your say so isn't enough to change my view of this. I should have been more open-minded towards WP:SOFTWARE but being called thick doesn't exactly put me in the best frame of mind. No, AFD isn't a vote, but that's not news to me and wasn't the intention of my input - but why say that to me when I'm at least trying to use notability guidelines? I will look at WP:SOFTWARE in detail for future reference, but some of your comments were unwarranted. QuagmireDog 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly where it says it is web content? "Boson is an open source OpenGL real-time strategy computer game programmed in C++" ... I challenge you to find a web site that uses OpenGL and is written in C++. This isn't an article about Boson's website, this is about a computer game, as indicated in the article title, in case you missed it. The package dependencies sure don't seem to indicate a web browser is required to play. And it's "popcon", not "popcorn", and that condition has been listed unchallenged in the WP:SOFTWARE proposal as an reasonable way to measure the popularity of a software package for quite a while now, we can't expect that to change drastically when WP:SOFTWARE becomes a real content guideline. I'm not expecting you to be a psychic, just use a little bit of common sense and a little bit of diligence, as in reading and understanding what the article covers. This isn't a vote (in a poll, everyone's generally expected to give a completely random inconsequential, misinformation-based vote that won't affect the end result anyway =), This is a discussion where you're supposed to actually examine the case at hand. If you're rejecting WP:SOFTWARE (which is practically being applied every day despite of its status), please at least provide a content guideline that has anything at all to do with the article. We're also not supposed to be concerned about the state of the article; what we have here is the fact that the bit of software is actually somewhat notable and we, thus, may have an article about it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is web content and is only listed as such within the article, which makes the application of WP:WEB perfectly acceptable. WP:SOFTWARE is just a proposal and not something I would have considered since there was no mention of it being bundled with a linux distribution - my psychic abilities are somewhat diminished today. I would be looking for a pair of reliable secondary sources any which way, so the article isn't a simple recreation of information available from the source without any critical review. A popcorn ranking of blah out of blah doesn't convince me otherwise, a couple of good reviews would, I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation for a game article. QuagmireDog 14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/realign Some of my own comments were entirely unwarranted, starting with my response to your first post Wolf. I should have explained my reasoning instead of going off on one, coming back and looking at my first reply, that was out of order. Looking back now, what I thought I saw and what I actually saw are two different things. I sat back a few minutes ago and thought "God, I don't feel so hot", then had a one-sided conversation on the telephone with someone, my head emptier than.. a very empty thing. Please accept my apologies. QuagmireDog 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And I absolutely have to apologise for my own thickness, too. I tried to hint that maybe you should have just reassessed the article as what it is, instead of creatively applying a seemingly unrelated notability criterion, but I suppose in this case, I only could bring forth ill will with my extremely boneheaded language. I'm sorry if I'm not as clear as I used to be. It is I who should have just rethought the whole thing before hitting save. Anyway, here's a hopefully clear recap of what I think: 1) While WP:SOFTWARE is just a proposed guideline, it's on a solid ground, has stood a long time, and will likely one day be accepted as a content guideline without much controversy. It is already a de-facto rule for many. 2) About the "unchallenged" bit: I was only referring to the criterion on free/open source software that's included in Linux distributions or like. It has been around for a long time; one might surmise it would have been scrapped earlier if it doesn't work. 3) Yes, the current article sucks and has little sources, and could use some expansion that's based on the game itself and other sources, not just a brief blurb that you can find on any Linux game site. However, if Boson appears to be included in Linux dists, it's a notable software and we should have an article about it, so even if we delete the article now, it should be without further prejudice in case someone else decides to write an article that isn't quite this stub-like. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I had a quick look for references; the nearest I could find was a passing mention at Slashdot. Although the programmer of Boson, Andreas Beckermann could possibly be notable as an author of a related book. Marasmusine 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- boson has a popcon rank of #8085 out of 63089 packages. Easily meets WP:SOFTWARE (included in a major Linux distro and is among the most popular packages). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Linux Journal mention, though it's a bit of a weak one (okay, given it was in 1999). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For whatever it's worth, I'm only saying Weak Keep now. While inclusion in a Linux dist may make it marginally notable, I guess it's one of the less-known games - I can't really find any bigger articles these days either. So unless there's bigger commendations around, the case for keeping this thing is pretty weak. And if deleted, without any prejudice if there's something more solid to show the notability. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to its appropriate Linux distribution. Since the subject's main claim of notability hinges on its inclusion in a Linux distribution (needs sources), I recommend just redirecting there. If the game can't establish notability on its own merits, then I don't see why it should have its own article. --Alan Au 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the game is most likely in at least 5 linux distros. BJTalk 18:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wwwolf, I wouldn't say that the free software notability sections of WP:SOFTWARE aren't challenged - just look at the discussion page. :) I'm one of those who disagrees that inclusion in a Linux distribution is an indicator of notability, especially with community supported distributions - any project maintainer with a bit of dedication a can create a tarball or a .deb or a RPM and get it included in a distribution. In a similar fashion, ratings like popcon are misleading because there is a certain number of packages that everybody uses, and then tons of packages each compete for a tiny number of installs. Boson had 180 installs at #8085. If they had had 10 more installs, they would have come in at #7871, and 10 less installs, they would have topped out at #8335. If I came and tried to push a binary shareware package that only had 180 downloads, I would be laughed off the wiki - this is really no different, except that the numbers can be sorted and put on a list. That said, its definitely verifiable, and since there is no official software policy, I can't argue against something that passes WP:V, so I remain Neutral. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, and that's why it should be important to explain what I think is notable in relation to popcon rating. These days, I interpret it simply like this: Anything higher than 10000 is (often debatably) notable. Anything below is probably not. Anything lower than 15000-20000 is probably chaff. I would not look too much at the install numbers, though - they're meaningless in itself and only tell how many of popcon users installed the package. We also have to remember that not all of Debian users participate in the popcon, we can only assume it's enough to form a representative sample (if it were not, Debian would scrap the whole thing as a completely unreliable costly system). FreeCiv at #7662 and has 200 or so installs - and has been featured in a number of magazines and everyone knows about it. And by "challenged the criterion", I mean "propose something better than we already have and see if it sticks". We need something to gauge the popularity of free software that doesn't depend on marketing budget. I agree this rule is fuzzy can lead to excess leniency, but we've got to have something to go by now. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wwwolf, I wouldn't say that the free software notability sections of WP:SOFTWARE aren't challenged - just look at the discussion page. :) I'm one of those who disagrees that inclusion in a Linux distribution is an indicator of notability, especially with community supported distributions - any project maintainer with a bit of dedication a can create a tarball or a .deb or a RPM and get it included in a distribution. In a similar fashion, ratings like popcon are misleading because there is a certain number of packages that everybody uses, and then tons of packages each compete for a tiny number of installs. Boson had 180 installs at #8085. If they had had 10 more installs, they would have come in at #7871, and 10 less installs, they would have topped out at #8335. If I came and tried to push a binary shareware package that only had 180 downloads, I would be laughed off the wiki - this is really no different, except that the numbers can be sorted and put on a list. That said, its definitely verifiable, and since there is no official software policy, I can't argue against something that passes WP:V, so I remain Neutral. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Retiono. qwm 14:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 23:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. ~700 Ghits when searching Boson "Computer game".--Jusjih 13:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Retiono also it has been tagged as needing sources. That is how it should be done, give it a chance. Has only been tagged since the same time this AfD started. After a little while longer if it still hasn't improved much then maybe delete. Mathmo Talk 14:28, 1 February 2007 (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.
