Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Frontier


 * 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. lots of concerns by several (majority) of editors about WP:RS in that article  JForget  21:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood Frontier

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Game has not received significant coverage from reliable publications. Article cites primary sources (sourcefourge, Mod DB, wiki) and a short slashdot submission with wishy-washy information. Marasmusine (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: You know it's going to be hard to make a case to keep an article when it has its own wiki and even there no one can manage to list anything that would count as reliable sources in their media coverage area. As said in description, it's all first-party stuff listed in the article and there doesn't appear to be anything else to tie it do. As "press" on their wiki it links to self-posted press releases on some B-rate gaming websites. Not even the general of reviews or discussions to go with. Going to have to pass. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep it was the project that developed the bots that later got introduced to Sauerbraten and furthermore acts as a development platform for new concepts that might get introduced to sauerbraten. --87.123.79.125 (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's assuming that article could stand up to a deletion discussion. Even if it was looked over and certified in top form, this is far from the kind of game that gets notability via legacy of series. It's okay if a game it low-distribution and publicity, but we still need sources sources sources! Links to self- or own-published material can't count as third-party reliability and notability in this case. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If Blood Frontier is just a footnote in the development of Sauerbraten, then mention it in the Cube 2 article (providing citations can be found). It does not justify a whole article on this game. Marasmusine (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is true. You're right! Why must you always be right?! Errr... well, just by looking, the article for Cube 2 is in a lot better shape and information added in there could probably solve this problem without sparking any tags on another. It would need proper citation for the things mentioned by the IP above, and after that the mentions of this game would have to be highly limited to its software/engine and clear itself of anything regarding plot, etc. ...Unless done, still have to sit on delete though. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See Blood Frontier: The Latest Open-Source FPS on Phoronix (note that the site has its own article) for one example of an article that shows up via Google results. This discusses the release and its kinship to Sauerbraten; I cannot edit the Blood Frontier article due to not having a neutral point of view. Blood Frontier is intended to succeed Sauerbraten, it is not a test platform for it; as open source projects we merely have a free exchange of ideas, information, and code. Angeles (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Quinton "quin" Reeves, Lead Developer)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. On the subject of google results, do you know of any Blood Frontier coverage that isn't just "here are some screenshots" or a press release? Marasmusine (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your total honesty about this is great! A POV issue doesn't automatically mean you can't edit the article; if you're just adding a few lines of text to connect the dots I don't see how that would be a problem. You do, however, deserve a cookie for thinking ahead in a way few people ever bother to. I'm in agreement with Marasmusine in that some really generic search results aren't quite enough though. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Continuing discussion for Keep: I'm glad I could be of some assistance. Only other major site I can think of is BlackBoxBETA; but there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of articles written by independents (in a variety of languages), a large portion of which are blogs (or other 'review' type sites, which I'm unsure constitutes a valid source), most notably FreeGamer and IndieGameQuest. I use Google Alerts, so while I do see these articles, it is only to track the movements on the internet and I don't really pay that much attention or note down ones of any significance. Angeles (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Quinton "quin" Reeves, Lead Developer)
 * Our guidelines on reliable sources rule out those websites as contributing towards WP:N: indiegamequest and freegamer are self-published, and BBB don't provide the kind of third-party coverage we look for . Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As Phoronix has its own article on Wikipedia, it seems safe to assume that it is a reliable self published source which covered Blood Frontier and satisfies WP:SPS due to the fact it has been cited by reliable third party publications  . This in turn means the other SPS's become valid as the article need not be based primarily on them. I realise, though, that I am most likely fighting a losing battle here and will just ask that the Wikipedia article redirects to our home page until such time as search engines no longer list Wikipedia in the top results (whether that be by natural evolution, or at Wikipedia's request). We never created the article, but it has become our largest source of traffic to the project; and I suspect a great deal of articles would not stand up to such scrutiny as we have faced here either. I have already spent way too much time validating and revalidating assertions made against this article, so please feel free to close this AfD and continue with deletion. Angeles (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC) (Quinton "quin" Reeves, Lead Developer)
 * The Phoronix coverage isn't significant enough for WP:N, but if anyone else can vouch for the site's reliability (being notable doesn't necessarily mean being reliable, as I found out when I wanted to cite Home of the Underdogs a little while ago), we could cite it at List of open source games and redirect there (sorry, redirecting to your website isn't a possibility.) Marasmusine (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the mentions on websites like Slashdot seem to be (just about) sufficient for notability here. Robofish (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Er... you do know that the Slashdot entry is just a copy-paste from a personal blog, right? Marasmusine (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The Slashdot source does not cover it. It is far too close to being WP:Primary and also selfpublished. I know a single editor gets to decide whether a post goes online but I don't think we can judge a quick decision of a single editor at another website to publish someone's selflove e.g. "and the game is great! It's nice to see these talented guys showing a true free software attitude" as a guide to wikipedia notability. I think throw this one out. Polargeo (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of third-party published sources. --Teancum (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns mostly blogs or passing mentions, while the sources prevented by (including the Slashdot one) are unreliable user-generated blogs that do not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (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.