-
Hedgewars (
talk|
|
history|
logs|
links|
watch) (
XfD|
restore)
I originally restored this article blindly because I didn't realize it had gone to AFD. After seeing it went to AFD, I decided to re-delete it and open this DRV instead. This article is very clearly not a
G4 candidate. It has been substantially updated since it was last deleted due to an AFD in 2009. The history shows about 75 edits since the original deletion, from a wide range of users. There is an argument to be made for its lack of notability, but we need an AFD discussion for that. This AFD was left open for just over 24 hours before being closed due to an inappropriate G4 deletion. This does not allow the time necessary to determine consensus on this issue (and I note that only two editors had even commented on the AFD). I'm opening the DRV because I believe this is not a G4 candidate and a full discussion needs to be made regarding its suitability on Wikipedia, given its current state.
Shirik (
Questions or Comments?)
04:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse
for now- If a repost of a deleted article does not address the reasons for the deletion, then it is a G4 candidate even if it looks superficially different. I have seen G4 deletions upheld at DRV on those grounds.
Reyk
YO!
06:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- List at AFD (I have not seen the article). Speedy deletion only applies to "the most obvious cases" so if the DRV nominator here thinks it was not a G4 candidate then, with hindsight, the speedy was mistaken. The comments at the one and a bit AFDs do not suggest any harm will come from making the article visible for discussion.
Thincat (
talk)
11:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Endorse unless evidence is brought forth that the situation is really any different than it was last time. It also had a pretty spammy feel, so I'm uncomfortable with having it restored if it has
no reasonable chance at AFD.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
17:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- original deletion reason outdated
I want to point out that the original deletion (5 years ago...) was done with the reason
"Non-notable video game." (RHaworth).
I do not see how that reason still holds, considering that Hedgewars is very popular these days:
It is the most-downloaded software on gna.org:
During January its windows client has been downloaded 87393 times from gna.org!
http://stats.gna.org/download.gna.org/usage_201401.html (compare that to warmus with 9182 downloads...)
The popular german site chip.de mirrors the windows download and the latest release version there has over 50.000 downloads with 350 ratings (96% positive)
http://www.chip.de/downloads/Hedgewars_32453115.html
It is popular on Distros like Ubuntu and is well received by its community
http://www.ubuntu.com/sites/www.ubuntu.com/files/active/softwarecentre_0.jpg
https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/precise/hedgewars/
Youtube users upload new videos of it all the time
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=videos&search_query=%22hedgewars%22&search_sort=video_date_uploaded
It was included on the CD's of various magazines ( e.g. the nz PCWorld
http://imgur.com/FOJ5xPS and some german magazine which name I currently don't remember)
There are a lot of reviews of hedgewars in many different languages out there (e.g.
http://www.tuxarena.com/2010/12/hedgewars-awesome-open-source-worms-like-game-for-linux/
http://www.giga.de/spiele/hedgewars/
http://www.linuxforu.com/2009/09/linux-game-review-hedgewars/
), they are just not that easy to find (unless you search for hedgewars and "last month" in the weeks after a release)
And I don't see why they don't count as 3rd party mention, just because they are not commercial pages.
It's not like many commercial magazine/site would suddenly decide to review a FOSS game that was released the first time 6 years ago.
Statements like "Only blogs and download sites mention it." (SharkD) seems a bit discriminatory against free open-source games to me.
PS: I'm sorry if this is the wrong place or style to post my position on this - While I use wikipedia a lot (as in view, not edit), I'm afraid I am not really familiar with administrative/editorial protocols :)
sheepluva (
talk) -- yes, I'm affiliated with the non-commercial free open-source project in question —Preceding
undated comment added 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
So. I get the feeling from some of the stuff written (won't survive Afd, spammy) that people are ignoring the links we are putting to prove notability. I'd also like to note we'd be happy to incorporate these into the article if that's what it takes, although I've heard that it is COI to do that, but, eh, if we are just moderately augmenting, perhaps it'd be ok.
So. I'm going to put all the links to reviews and references together in one list.
References by way of the psych study that used us, which described the game in a fair amount of detail and included screenshots.
There are others, but these seemed moderately reputable.
I hesitate to include, too many since probably only a few count as notable by your standards but we've had many reviews by FOSS software/gaming sites. At the very least this points to having a fairly high profile at least in the FOSS world (as if being the 5th FOSS game in the Ubuntu softare centre wasn't evidence of this already)
If these are usable I can post many more.
At one point, (Ubuntu 12.04?) a screenshot from the game was on the
http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop page in the Games section, but they keep redesigning that.
From a quick site:wikipedia.org Hedgewars google search, seems like people created pages for it under ru, de, pl, es, fr, it, zh, and ko - there were also a fair number of pages referencing Hedgewars across the board. I realise this has nothing to do with 3rd party sources - that's what the scans and links above are for. I just thought it might help point out that this isn't spammy, and that in the FOSS game world, Hedgewars is fairly high profile.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.50.78.21 (
talk)
18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- The article deleted was all
primary source material, the sort of thing that would be expected on the publishers website. Wikipedia articles should be based upon what third parties say about the topic, which is different to descriptions of the topic. If you had a registered Wikipedia account with a contribution history across a range of articles, then we'd trust you with a userfied version that you could make "encyclopedic" in style. As it stands, I fear that you'd just resubmit
in-universe description, how-to play guide, and promotion. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
00:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Not sure if that was addressed at me and/or the other person above - but either way: thank you for clarification. I do understand that most of the page is misplaced/not relevant (from what I can see most of it was added by the same person - I don't know if that was a dev or not, the name doesn't seem familiar to me at all) - and I don't think we question that the page needs to be cleaned up. But why delete and salt the page when you just could remove all the non-relevant sections - those which wouldn't make sense to be kept even if their were non-primary sources for them (control keys, version history, people, etc) - and slap big "citation needed" and "primary sources" notes on top of the few remaining, but relevant, paragraphs? (maybe even with your quote "Wikipedia articles should be based upon what third parties say about the topic, which is different to descriptions of the topic." to further help the people to understand why and what should be fixed? --
sheepluva (
talk)
09:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- You need to start with an independent commentary, such as a review, from a reputable source, that is not serving as promotion. You also will need to explain your
WP:COI, and why enthusiastic authors for the topic are not interested much in contributing anything else. It may be a little unfair, but once Wikipedia has turned on its
WP:NOTPROMOTION alert, the bar is raised. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
22:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- ... Speaking personally about this, I'm only here because you deleted the wikipedia article to a game that I've contributed to for 5 years, which has a pretty high profile in FOSS gaming, so I felt deserved its place here. I've hardly touched the article so while I'm an enthusiastic defender of the article's existence, I'm hardly an editor. I'm only offering to edit the article merely to slap in the reviews noted above and satisfy that criticism about the content (which appears to be a new criticism after the notability thing has been hopefully shot down - but that was the initial reason for deletion I believe). While I contribute periodically to certain things, occasionally finding someone with an account to do the upload of an image, I don't really have the time to do more than that, and certainly don't have the time to learn the ins and outs of wikipedia politics and formatting. The article was not written by the devs, while it is a convenient article to point people at when they want some piece of information, we hardly need promotion. We aren't exactly making any money off of this. Sure our feeling are hurt, and thus the heated response. But, yeah, wasn't COI in the first place, and I have no particular desire to do anything COI now, but, I was just pointing out that I could easily work those links above into the article if one of you was unwilling to do it. I'd also like to note that, yes, the article does reference google code and ohloh and such... but I'm sure that could stay if a few more sources were added from the list above. Mozilla Firefox's article is 56% mozilla.org links, and also, yeah, has ohloh and such as well...
- Oh, and, I have to say, I don't get the deletionist obsession about notability. I mean, how does stuff like this really hurt Wikipedia. If articles have insufficient sourced content, put a banner at the top, add sorting on disambiguation/meta pages based on popularity/someothercriterionlikeeditorvotes and let people work this out for themselves if they happen upon an article. But certainly "DELETE" seems to be a poor response to an objection over quality. Putting something at the top would have been a good start... In the time we've spent arguing about this, one of you could probably have tossed those review links into a few places on the page and deleted whatever you felt didn't belong there, and generally made everything presumably AOK.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/shanerichmond/100002023/wikipedia-should-delete-the-deletionists/ (situation described there sure sounds familiar)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.50.78.21 (
talk)
02:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review
DGG (
talk )
19:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- List at AfD. I don't think it will survive AfD, but that's entirely beside the point. There are good reasons why we have discussion-based processes, and an AfD is not just a discussion for discussion's sake.—
S Marshall
T/
C
21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn the XfD2 close "speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4" to "SNOW delete" (per XfD2). It could reasonably be relisted "for the full seven days". --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
09:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Overturn It is clearly not acceptable to have someone nominate an article for deletion, and then five years later use their tools during an AfD to unilaterally overturn the previous DRV. On top of that, there was a salting. Skimming the article tells me that too much of the material is IINFO. I looked at one of the links above and it shows that the topic has attracted the attention of researchers in Finland. This means that the world at large has and will have a long-term interest in this topic. I suggest incubation.
Unscintillating (
talk)
15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
- The G4-deleting admin is
WP:INVOLVED involved, single-handedly overturned a DRV, and in doing so terminated an AfD. The article was not a G4 candidate. There is no substantive purpose to restoring the article to mainspace when it can go to draftspace, and if a revised article comes out of
WP:Drafts, it can be nominated for a new AfD. Resuming the current AfD is WP:BURO.
Unscintillating (
talk)
01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Note: the project tries to promote the undeletion with the help of fans
[1]
Matthias M. (
talk)
22:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- ... ok. What's the problem here? I asked people to provide you with references (needed for notability) and asked wikipedians for assistance (who would know the politics, and possibly be able to help with cleanup). If there's any actual issue in this post, let me know, and I'll fix it or pull it. (yes, I wrote it)
- BTW, here's a fan provided link.
-
http://www.pcworld.co.nz/article/481850/how-to_get_free_games_fast_game_downloader/
- Note that while I'm a bit surprised this would be a problem and I'll pull it if you identify one, I can't do much about the various aggregators out there which mirror us. A quick check online shows google indexing 4 of those. I suppose if it is a straight RSS feed they might vanish if I unpublish. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.50.78.21 (
talk)
23:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- You really need to be told why offsite canvassing for votes is considered bad? Geez. Ok, here we go: At best, it creates pointless noise. Wikipedia discussions aren't really 'votes', and simply showing up in greater numbers won't win out against an argument grounded in policy. Also, the admin who closes the discussion has to try to figure out which comments are legit and which are the result of canvassing/vote stacking. Further, it tends to create a backlash, and if the community feels vote stacking is tainting the discussion it may lead to opposing comments from editors who would otherwise have been neutral not not bothered to comment at all. I've never seen offsite canvassing work the way the perpetuator intended it to, and I strongly suggest taking down the post and focusing on improving the article if you really want it to be kept.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Wait, I can improve the article? I was told by a wikipedian I wasn't allowed. That was one of the reasons I was asking for help.
- The other was for links to show notability. I don't see either of these as causing "noise". I gotta say, from what you said above, it sounds like you think I was asking for people to vote in this irritating process, which wasn't what I asked for at all...
- Frankly I find this whole deletion thing extremely distasteful and contrary to spirit of wikipedia entirely. But. Yes, if the discussion is now about quality and, I am allowed to make the edits, I'd be happy to do so. I guess the question is how. You said "focus on improving the article" - I'm pretty sure I can't do anything to the article right now, that it has been killed...
- I went ahead and put a note on there saying we were NOT looking for votes, but rather for references in press and people to offer to help clean up the article and satisfy concerns on that front (assuming we are ever allowed to). Heh. Actually, is amusing you're talking about "focusing on improving the article" since I just noticed you voted to "endorse" which as I understand things at this point, would make that impossible, forever... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.50.78.21 (
talk)
16:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia does allow article drafts, which are kept either in userspace or draft space where they can be worked on. If you are the creator of the game or otherwise have a
conflict of interest, you should not be working on the article yourself. Someone even on your own forum had an excellent idea though: move it to Wikia, where notability, verifiability, and COI aren't as much a concern. If you could get a good article with every point reliably sourced there would be no objection to it being considered for Wikipedia.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Heh. Every point reliably sourced. As noted, even Firefox is 56% internal cites, and that's not even considering the references to code sites which were what the existing article does. But. Yeah, that's been my understanding, the COI thing. So I haven o idea how to resolve that, apart from asking around for someone interested. Thus the post on the forum. And, the wikia thing is an awful idea. Sheesh. Dead links on the List of Open Source games on Wikipedia is just so sad and an indication of a misplaced agenda. Have you seen the number of articles killed for the top deletionists? Even if they were working 40 hours a week, no vacations, they'd still only be able to spend a few minutes considering each one. I'm not sure what drives them apart from possibly a desire to try and transform a rich and endlessly deep wiki into encyclopedia britannica. But. Ok. I'll add something to the post looking for someone who has the experience to do this draft thing, and maybe link their work here... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.50.78.21 (
talk)
17:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
|
