Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active pause system


 * 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. Pigman ☿ 05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Active pause system

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a neologism. I can't see this expanding much beyond a dictionary definition.  Pagra shtak  21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's more than a dicdef now. It's adequately referenced. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, after the removal of unreliable sources. A random quote in an internet forum in not an appropriate "praise" section.  Pagra shtak  17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There was also a criticism section. The praise section was to keep it NPOV. Jecowa (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article can't really go anywhere. Plus, can citing sources saying that some random games have this feature really demonstrate any encyclopaedic treatment? Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'm inclined to agree. Any mention and explanation of this feature should be in articles relating to games that use it, but only then if the use of the feature in those game is notable. As Pagrashtak said, I can't see this going anywhere further than a dictionary definition. -- Sabre (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem to be an article at all. Its just a definition with random games so a person would think the article is reliable. 1yodsyo1 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this? Are you a psychic? Are you telling me that you know for a fact that I referenced articles mentioning games with an active pause feature in an attempt to somehow decieve you? Please assume good faith! The references for these games only serve the purpose of providing easy access to additional sources to verify that these games indeed have this feature. Jecowa 07:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While a definition article doesn't inherently need deletion (they can often be expanded well beyond that), in this case, it seems like there's nothing more to it. Furthermore, I'm not convinced this isn't just a term the creator made up -- at the least, the one weblink doesn't specifically call it an "active time system", which makes me doubtful the others do. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not very nice. I don't like being accused of making things up. I did not make that word up. I read it in an article and did not know what it meant, so I tried to look it up on Wikipedia. Wikipedia didn't have an article on it, so I searched the internet for explanations, and I typed what I found out at this article. The first reference mentions "active pause mode," although not "active pause system" as this article is titled. I was thinking about moving this to "active pause," but thought that would not be a good thing to do while a AfD is in progress, but maybe I should have. Jecowa (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's accusing you of having made up the term; rather, the term was created for a single game and hasn't been used by anyone since. It was made up for that game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It was made up for which game? There are references to the term "active pause" being used for four seperate games. Jecowa (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Which brings up an interesting point about print references. They are allowed of course, but it's also easier to use them when it's not really true. Anyone reading this have any of those mags, and can check? I'm not by a long shot calling you a liar or anything, but it still seems a bit ORish as it stands now. If nothing else, it's still basically a definition and nothing more, as it stands now. EDIT: Yeah oops, I was misreading those as print refs. Sigh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can check them all yourself. The links are all on the article. Here's them for you again if you are having trouble with the reference section.
 * http://www.pcformat.co.uk/reviews/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=31826&subsectionid=680 - mentions "active pause mode"
 * http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/14134/New-Fallout-3-Site/ - mentions "active pause system"
 * http://www.forlornworld.com/index.php?lang=uk&site=game&cat=faq - mentions "active pause"
 * http://scats.cn/game/gunlok/English/Gunlok.htm - mentions "active pause" and active pause mode"
 * Jecowa 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some more articles which discuss the topic: . I'm not sure how reliable the second site is. Also, the last two links are interviews with developers. I believe the WPVG:Sources article says that dev talk is OK as long as they're talking about their own game. SharkD 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with hypothetical article discussing Real-time game&mdash;specifically the term "Real-time with pause", which is the same thing as "Active pause", but more notable/commonly used (see here). Personally, I think the concept is notable, even if the actual term used for it isn't. I think it's notable just for the controversy surrounding it; e.g., many games that use this system are frequently called "turn-based", when in fact they aren't (see here, here, here, here, here) SharkD 04:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is also the "smart pause" system which is a (supposedly) advanced version of real-time with pause used in Brigade E5: New Jagged Union (see here). SharkD 04:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per adding of sources as noted above. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.