Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evennia


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Evennia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It is sourced entirely to primary and unreliable sources, and there is nowhere near enough depth from secondary sources to write a detailed article on this topic. The academic uses are passing mentions. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar 16:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  16:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete I was hoping some reliable secondary sources would turn up, but when I first came across the article and noted the sourcing issues, I couldn't locate any myself either. My talk page section received no further comments from the major contributors of the article. -- ferret (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from the article in MIT News, the article references only primary sources. I couldn't find any secondary sources to remedy the problem, which suggests the subject has insufficient notability to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's certainly true that text-based MMORPG gaming (aka MUDs) is these days a small section of computer gaming, with difficulty finding traction in gaming media. A game engine for text-based MMORPGs like Evennia seeks a comparably small audience. But the referenced MIT research article is more significant than is given credit here - the article don't just give Evennia a "passing mention" as suggested here: the article is literally using Evennia to reach its conclusion. The use of text was indeed necessary to simplify their problem to a point that the AI could be tested and features of the engine and its default content is referenced in the article. As such is shows a academical use of Evennia (and text-based gaming) also in today's age. Full disclosure though: I'm the lead dev of Evennia, so I admit a bias here. Starkiel (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If MIT uses the software, that source is primary to the subject matter. If MIT's use of the software was noteworthy, a secondary, reliable source would say so. czar  12:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree: if an MIT research team uses a software that they did not develop, this amounts to validation by a secondary party. Of course, that is still quite far from "extensive discussion in reliable secondary sources" since (1) all researchers at MIT cannot be viewed by default as established authorities (thus reliable sources) in their domains and more importantly (2) Evennia was not the subject of the research but merely a tool, neither the MIT press release nor the research paper can be construed as "significant discussion" of that tool. Tigraan (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My software can be used by all the companies in the world—if an independent outlet (secondary to my press releases) doesn't write about it, then we have no secondary sources to summarize. If my software is used in a noteworthy way, a journalist will note it. czar  23:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Journalist" is not a requirement in WP:GNG. The MIT team is independent from the software developpers. (However, their paper is not a reliable source because it was not subjected to any serious editorial review.) Tigraan (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Irrespective of how editorially valid the MIT article is considered to be, it does sound like a strange requirement if a secondary source must not themselves use the software in order to be considered "reliable". I can see the problem with the reliability of a semi-anonymous blog somewhere, but if an established university scientist (or, say, a company rep) were to write a review of a piece of software they had no part in creating and no financial stake in, does them being a user of said software really disqualify them from being a "reliable" source? Starkiel (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be fine—depends more on the outlet. For notability, we're looking at whether enough has been enduringly written on the topic in sources that indicate importance. Five personal reviews of a piece of software by scientists on their personal blogs (even as experts) would not be the same as a single periodical's article on the software's prominence among scientists. But we're getting off topic now. czar  03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, that makes better sense. Thanks for the clarification. Starkiel (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The MIT reference is probably enough for me to pass it by in favor of something more promotional, but since we're here, I'll say that I can't find enough coverage in reliable sources.  Wikia is a better place for this sort of thing.  They don't have have inclusion criteria or sourcing requirements, and you can easily create the official wiki there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable game/framework with no in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. News articles such as or  exist but are essentially based on MIT news, so it feels like WP:1EVENT. Doesn't appear like any sources have any original content. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete no discussion in RS, blah blah blah.
 * The MIT article confers in my view very little notability if any. That is not a reliable academic paper in the sense it was not peer-reviewed (it is a conference paper), but more importantly, while Evannia was certainly very useful to their project, any similar text-based gaming software would have done the trick. As such I invoke WP:MILL on it. Tigraan (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (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.