Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Design Brief

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game Design Brief

This is completely original research. The "literature" section does not suppport the article as third-party sources, other than perhaps as citations for an essay. Again, this would fall under original research. I can't imagine this could be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, as whatever could be saved is already covered in Game design freshacconci talktalk 12:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. freshacconci talktalk 12:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - For now. I think the article is just kind of poorly-written for an encyclopedia (POV). I'm not a big gamer person, I'd suggest consulting some admin who knows that stuff. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like original research wrapped in a how to guide. Burzmali (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely looks like original research and somewhat of a fork of Game Design. Edward321 (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - It's too wordy for me to discern if there is anything worth keeping. If there is any salvageable content that's not redundant it should be inline referenced and merged with the Game design article in simple factual statements, without the instructions or suggestions. I don't see any reason to have a separate article for subject matter that clearly falls under that category.
Keep or merge to Game Design. Needs cleanup, but the basic content of the article is less a POV fork of Game Design than a superior (at least from a scholar standpoint) collection of information on the subject. Sources cited are legitimate. Claims made (while obscured to someone outside the industry) are valid. Definitely needs some love, though. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR Delete StonerDude420 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it original research? Wikipedia doesn't require footnote or in text citations for all articles (And only recently required them for FAs). there are a half dozen sources cited that verify the claims made in the article. It isn't original research. Protonk (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, WP:OR is pretty clear on this, especially in the first paragraph on what original research is. And as for sources, WP:V is again pretty clear on sources. Both of these are WIkipedia policy. The sources provided only provide support as an original essay, not verification for a teriary source of information, such as Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. I am telling you that the sources listed in that article verify the material in the article. This is explicitly allowed. This article isn't OR just because it is poorly written or poorly formatted. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those references listed specifically refer to the concept of "Game Design Brief"? If not, then this article is an essay, and therefore original research. If the references listed do specifically mention this concept, and no online versions are available, then the article would need to be extensively rewritten with excerpts from those texts. At this point the references merely support this as an essay. And if this is something that's already covered in Game design, I fail to see the point for a seperate article at this point. freshacconci talktalk 22:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Abstract from the title. Pretend that the title doesn't exist. Read the content and then read the references. The references support the claims made in the article, namely the interplay between conceptual and instrumental design, the explanation of the scope of "game design" and the discussion of "state space" in the last section (and others). Like I said in my original keep 'vote', we could move this content to Game design and the game design article would be improved. This is verifiable, sourced content and we should be editing to improve it rather than deleting it. Protonk (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently Software design document is what this article means to talk about. If it gets merged, it should be merged there, as a smerge would be an unambiguous improvement. Protonk (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the article is mistitled - it means that it is a brief upon Game Design. Software design document is not appropriate because it is talking about games, not software. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the article means to be titled "Game Design Brief" quite literally, describing the document that outlines a game's design from the outset. In this case Software design document would be a possible broad parent, as would game design. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Game design. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure WP:OR, lacking any sources to indicate WP:NOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Protonk. Looks like it has all the elements to be a valid standalone article, just needs referencing and copyediting. Flagged for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 28 December 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.