Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Oberon

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Oberon

Article is regularly proposed for deletion, so might be an idea to discuss here and get it settled one way or the other. The main issue is notability - The game has not been the subject of significant, reliable, third-party coverage. The closest thing seems to be this short writeup in CHIP magazine. Marasmusine (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable software. It's still under heavy development - it may be a nice game, but doesn't even have a single player mode, and no servers setup on the internet for multiplayer use! The only references to it are a (very brief) German magazine article, which is pretty old, an entry on a WWW site listing all open source games for Linux ever created - and what appear to be 3 spam references portable menu systems for USB drives... Which only repackage an already portable program, and don't even include it in their suites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.54.10.162 (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see over 10k G-hits with mention on several review sites (including the German CHIP magazine article listed above) and even a few scholarly articles (e.g. the game is discussed in Marianna Luxardo's thesis entitled I videoclip dei Tool fra animazione e sperimentazione, and is covered in some minor depth in Arild Johan Jensen's and Håvard Nes' University of Bergen thesis entitled The Personality Module). The particular weaknesses of the software do not go to notability and are not at issue in the least. The article clearly needs further referencing, however. I would recommend adding "Expand" and "Refimprove" tags and seeing how things progress from there. -Thibbs (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have these student theses been peer-reviewed (per WP:RS)? Marasmusine (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This IndieGames.com review is OK-ish. It needs more, though. SharkD (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not bad. The source of the review is actually this self-published site, though. But perhaps IndieGames.com partially reprinting it makes it usable. Marasmusine (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The game is talked about much more than it is written about in journals, so its notability isn't solid. As it passes into community nostalgia, I'm confident that its influence on later projects will become better documented. If it wasn't open-source, there'd be no shortage of articles about it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that an argument for deletion? Marasmusine (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More like WP:DEADLINE#View two. --AuthorityTam (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ghits aren't notability. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the multiple reliable secondary sources to satisfy notability. The only secondary source in the article worth a damn is the Chip listing, which is a couple of sentences culminating in "However, you should (not yet) expect too much. The units are not yet fully animated, and the control is still a bit complicated, especially in higher resolutions. Also, the enemy intelligence very immature, so that it is only worthwhile to stand against human players." It's of precious little use. Though I'd normally be very happy to see IndieGames used as a source, this one is a cross-posting from a backwater site. The review is also poorly written, the opening sentence: "Dark Oberon is a solid programmed RTS-game with unique grafics." I like to argue the reliability case for the more usable sites dealing with indie gaming in general, but I wouldn't touch this one with a bargepole. Someone another 11:35, 1 July 2009 (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.