Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:09, 23 April 2009

FreeOrion

• Articles for deletion/FreeOrion
• Articles for deletion/FreeOrion (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/FreeOrion (3rd nomination)

FreeOrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Back for the third time. New version, so it dodges G4 CSD, but it still doesn't assert a single evidence of notability. Thoughts? - Vianello (Talk) 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Keep The article is well written and just as valid as most of other opensource project pages. I will personally work on improving it even further when necessary. Here's an review of the game btw http://freeorion.en.softonic.com/ . The project/game is also well referred among Master of Orion and 4X strategy game communities.Peer-LAN (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Response. Unfortunately, a personal assessment of "gamer community" is not a reliable source. A review's more a step in the right direction. - Vianello (Talk) 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete & salt - still no reliable sources supporting a verifiable and neutral article. MLauba (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete & salt. The only references are from its own website and sourceforge. Clearly not notable, and the author has not made any attempt to establish notability following previous AfD discussions. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep What's with all the hate? The article is good and the project is well enough known, well better position then most open source game with wikipedia pages. Some aditional links http://www.happypenguin.org/show?Free%20Orion, http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20080511064350671/FreeOrion.html Dauntless (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — Dauntless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• There is no hate, the article is being weighed against Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines the same as any other article brought into an AFD discussion. Someoneanother 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- J 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- How many times does this need to be deleted? Still advertising for nonnotable software. If other open source games with less reason for being here have Misplaced Pages articles, as Dauntless suggests, those should be deleted as well. DreamGuy (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Response. That's just not true. It is a notable open source game, with over fifty thousand google results (which is a lot, e.g. Quiet Exit the debut album of Norwegian singer-songwriter Elvira Nikolaisen that is now on the main page at Did you know... or Robert Lee Howze who's also there have less), with packages distributed on several Linux repositories and available for Windows/Mac. It is notable, I can give millions of examples of articles (not game related) that have fewer results (not that I support the removal of those). Look, I just pushed the random button and I got Dale L. Walker, Cassidy's Ltd,Victor Pasmore, BTC Racing, Cotelsat, Marcos Elias, Enyinnaya Abaribe etc... I could go on for ever, with fewer results! This game is notable enough and well known in the gaming community. The fact that open source games don't have advertisement on commercial game magazines doesn't mean that it's not N. This game is notable whether you like it or not, and there are a whole lot more things out there then this wikipedia page that deserver attention. Leave this page alone already, I rewrote it to meet Misplaced Pages standards, now if you want to improve come and help. Peer-LAN (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Notable to you doesn't necessarily equate with notable for an article on Misplaced Pages. If it is indeed notable for Misplaced Pages, then you ought to have no problems showing why. Google hits aren't a recognized measure of notability. Multiple instances of independent, non-trivial coverage in notable and reliable sources are. And that's what we go by, whether you like it or not. DreamGuy (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Master of Orion per WP:NNC if sufficient RS to establish N cannot be found. Seems to have sufficient sourcing to meet V, so salting is absolutely not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Three deletion debates and no-one has produced reliable sources to indicate it passes WP:WEB? Jesus. Delete and salt, at best it gets one line in the Master of Orion series page. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Merge to Master of Orion per WP:NNC — for now. The article already seems to meet the verifiability guidelines but it still doesn't appear to be notable enough to justify its separate existence. Also, "how many times does this need to be deleted?" is not a valid question. Since the project in a state of continuing development, it will presumably meet the notability guidelines at some time in the future.

Relevant search results:

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/freeorion/

http://www.gamesterritory.com/?p=104

http://freeorion.en.softonic.com/

http://www.freewaregenius.com/2008/05/15/an-overview-of-free-turn-based-strategy-and-war-games/

Rankiri (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment Blogs, self-published sources, primary sources... none of these nor the ones linked by Peer-Lan above are considered as reliable third-party sources acceptable under the wikiproject videogame's source list. I don't see how merging wholly unsourced content to Master of Orion is acceptable in any way, nor do I see any chance that this merge would stand for even a day without getting reverted. MLauba (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Response Excuse me but show me two open source games that meet those criteria of having an article on a commercial game magazine. If this how you review notability, they you might as well go and remove the whole section of open source game from Misplaced Pages and stick with the paid reviews. 1 2 Peer-LAN (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Response Any article whatsoever has to pass the sourcing threshold in order to stay on Misplaced Pages. The reason for that is simple: only through reliable third-party comment can the reader be assured that he's reading content which is as encyclopedic and neutral as possible, rather than subtly written propaganda. Bending or compromising on these requirements is basically breaking the trust between Misplaced Pages and the reader. If we make exceptions for a game (which is, in the grand scheme of things, rather harmless), how could we justify not making exceptions for posting nasty rumors about a politician or a celebrity coming from a random blog, which is not rather harmless? MLauba (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Response Not only that you compare apples to oranges, but please tell me how you keep your political standard on articles like Swfmill, BCX, hipergate, MINIX, Knark and I could keep going on but to be honest I'm afraid you'll start proposing them all for deletion for no logical reason. I usually contributed to wikipedia with pleasure; I've never meet so much iniquitous resistance. Peer-LAN (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MLauba (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, that what I meant and was looking for; thanks for pointing me towards what I should have posted instead of my comment (as they touch the same point, of your comparison not being well related to the current state of affairs).

• You appear to misunderstand my point. There are other poorly sourced articles on Misplaced Pages which do not meet the reliable sources policy. They are however not under consideration in this present AfD, nor is the existence of other poorly sourced articles a valid precedent. The point is, when a deletion discussion does occur, the consensus is normally formed on standing policies, not upon their subversion - unless the opposing opinion holders can make a valid case on why we should Ignore All Rules. That being said, this is only my view on the matter, and I expect I've explained it at length. If you want to pursue this further on a bilateral basis, don't hesitate to take it to my talk page. MLauba (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: I'm fairly sure the available information—including independently taken screen captures—makes it safe to conclude that FreeOrion is, in fact, an open source remake of a TBS classic Master of Orion that it is similarly set in space, licensed under the GPLv2 license, available for various operating systems, currently under version 0.3.12, and so on. Considering that the open sourced nature of the game automatically makes it an unlikely review candidate for the major game reviewing publications, I think some of the googled sources, along with the official www.freeorion.org, should be enough to satisfy the merged paragraph's source requirements, therefore I still support selective merging over deletion. Rankiri (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The game has been around for a long time, though it's still in alpha, and is based on / inspired by a classic 4X game. It's worth having it in Misplaced Pages. If we don't want to keep it as its own article, we should at least Merge it with the Master of Orion page. I agree with Jclemens—there is no reason to salt this article. Peyre (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per LAN. — Jake Wartenberg 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Google returns mostly download and forum links. Nothing more substantial. SharkD (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any reliable third-party sources, necessary to demonstrate notability. Powers 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is basically advertising. Without reliable third-party sources it cannot be a complete NPOV article. I might also add that WP:GOOGLE and WP:OTHERSTUFF are not in themselves valid arguments. bridies (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Rally cry on their forums. MLauba (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Added {{afdanons}}. — Jake Wartenberg 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment A rally call for improving the quality of the article... is that somehow "bad" in your opinion? Also I just joined today that forum and tried to help them with something that seemed logical at that time and I haven't even thought this will happen; after all it's a well balanced article for a quite well known open source game. I didn't expected The Spanish Inquisition. Peer-LAN (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Noooobody expects the... oh never mind. Powers 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Adding a snotty remark like "please improve what you can before some crazy ass admin starts feeling important" is somehow "bad", funnily enough. Inviting others to jump in after you've poisoned the well is less than helpful. Someoneanother 22:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Question to SALT !voters Why? What would salting this accomplish that simply protecting a redirect to Master of Orion wouldn't accomplish? Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Response It would ensure that the fourth attempt goes through DRV and gets recreated as properly sourced, at long last. At least that's how I see it. MLauba (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • We can do that with a protected redirect--no non-admin would be able to change it, and DRV would be the right process to get the protection lifted. I want to make sure we're doing the right thing for the encyclopedia here, rather than just prohibiting a potential redirect (redirects are cheap) just because an enthusiastic bunch of hobbyists want their NN game included. Salting is for protecting the encyclopedia from clear harm, not for punishing enthusiastic creators of NN content. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Point taken & vote amended. MLauba (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (and maybe salt): I hate to do this, because I've so much as played the game. But then I play a lot of free games, and it's not about my personal opinion for what we include/exclude. We have policies and guidelines that are meant to ensure quality articles, and prevent personal opinion from slipping in. If this is important, find a reliable third-party source to say it is. If it isn't, then don't include it in Misplaced Pages until it is. Randomran (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete but hold the salt, oppose merge or redirect to MoO though, this is a separate game and should be treated as such. The Softonic source looks good, but in order to provide enough material to build a solid neutral article (per notability), multiple reliable sources which cover the subject properly are needed. Game databases which contain links to the game and a stack of small articles on sites which can't be shown to be reliable aren't providing what is needed. I think there is a very good chance that this game could become more widely reviewed, but not until it has some kind of solid base (IE a version which is basically complete but can be further added to). Reviewers aren't going to fall over themselves to cover something which isn't complete in the majority of cases, give it a chance when there's hope that it will be covered. There are several sites who cover misc. freeware/open source/indie etc. games who could reasonably be argued as reliable. For instance: Jay is Games, GameZebo, Rock Paper Shotgun etc. If this is deleted then I suggest waiting for it to be built into that basically complete game then notifying as many of these reviewers as possible, if reviews do get written the article can be brought back, cited and then it's fine. Someoneanother 22:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Several comments have suggested redirecting to Master of Orion. Despite the similar name, FreeOrion is not a clone or remake of Master of Orion or any other game. The theme is similar, but design decisions are not made (solely or primarily) because of how a MOO game works. Various other games provide inspriation, but most design discussions are debated on their own merits. Geoff the Medio 75.155.168.6 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — 75.155.168.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I see. I was under impression that it was an open source remake of a commercially successful classic, similar in that to FreeDOOM or OpenTTD. If it's not closely based on the original game, I correct my original vote to delete and I hope the project will become more notable in the future. — Rankiri (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Aditional argument for Keep A good argument that I forgot to point out is that the game enjoys a constant flow of an average of 1000 downloads a day . And that is just from the direct download from Sourceforge.net, not including third party repositories or websites. That's significant unbiased data Peer-LAN (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and salt – I cannot find anything reliable that can establish notability of this game. I won't claim speedy deletion G4 as consensus seems to be against it, but my opinion is that nothing explicit has been brought forward even from the first AFD nomination. The question of the redirect should have been brought up at deletion review or can still be (as a protected version) if there is indeed a dispute as to whether the redirect would be a plausible search term, as 75.155.168.6 suggests. Otherwise, the constant recreation seems to indicate disruptive editing. MuZemike 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Please note that along with asking for help on the external discussion board, peer-LAN appears to be canvassing for support on wiki too. Quantpole (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Response can you read WP:CANVASS before you open you mouth from now on please. If you look, you'll see that Friendly notice, maybe... that is, if you're not just blinded by your irrational abhorrence you seem to have, because my message was limited in scale, neutral, nonpartisan and open (it's like I wrote that part of the article). So please, stop with all this Kabuki, it's just not necesary and plain impious. Peer-LAN (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Games or sports)
• AfD debates