Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free games


 * 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 keep. A merge can be discussed elsewhere (as it could have been with or without an AFD), though it is likely to be disputed as these are two distinct concepts. — CharlotteWebb 23:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Free games / Open source video games
Not worthy of its own article.. and it has 2! D\=&lt; (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Previous AfD nom for convenience. Tuxide (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge at Open source video games and keep. Don't see any reason this isn't worthy of its own article. Jfire (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge at Open source video games and speedy keep. With articles like this and the ones already given and cited in the article, there's absolutely no reason at all to delete this. Keep. Tuxide made me realize something I hadn't thought about before; while something can be open source and free, it doesn't necessarily follow that something is open-source and free.  Cel  Talk to me  05:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above. I'm not sure there couldn't be an article on the term "free games" as used by the article, but it's hard searching for it, as usually it means something different - so I have no idea how notable it is on its own. Both articles cite no proper references and have some other issues like being stubs and having external links not following WP:LINKS, so for now one stub instead of two really seems the best way. --Minimaki (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Open source video games, if that article passes its own AfD. At risk of treading in WP:WAX territory, I'd say if it doesn't, that probably indicates that this is also fodder for deletion.-- Kevin (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm inviting the WikiProject Free Software to comment on this AfD, as either page could be adopted by the Wikiproject and turned into a much better article. -- RoninBK T C 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even if it was, we shouldn't be making up our own dictionary words. Tuxide (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that these are not dictionary-type subjects. These are games that are free and open source, which is an extremely widespread phenomenon in the technical world.  Please research these things before you make such judgements.  Celarnor Talk to me  02:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ew, WP:NPA. What I meant was people seem to fight over the very meaning of these words, as per the previous AFD.  Some argue whether open source games have open content; if so then that means it has the same meaning as free games.  Furthermore, Wizards of the Coast have been calling the prior open games (which is not CVG-specific in the case of the d20 system).  Tuxide (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Sorry, your meaning wasn't clear to me at first.  In any case, that seems to be an argument for not merging them, as they are two separate terms; I hadn't thought of that, and it makes me realize that these need to remain here and distinct even more. Celarnor Talk to me  17:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I would like to believe, but there are some editors who dispute that the two phrases mean the same thing, citing the Open Source Definition which doesn't allow for proprietary content. This is the dispute I was in the last time.  I will change my vote to keep and rename on the condition that whatever the hell we call these two concepts can pass WP:V.  Tuxide (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep added keep to clarify the merge vote above... merge/delete is for "free games", keep for "open source games", as with explanation following There's quite a discrepancy between the topic and the current article. The topic itself seems notable and a long and well referenced scientific article likely could be written (see e.g. google scholar results ). The current article is rightfully marked as stub though and only has some completely unreferenced text as content (the 4 given references are one personal blog and 3 websites of specific games). But we mostly decide here about the topic and not so much about the current content. As I said earlier, with the "free games" article I'm less sure, it might just be a dictionary definition "open source game which happens to be free software". --Minimaki (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Out of curiosity, why make the delineation between Free / OSS games and any other Free / OSS software? -- Kevin (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In my case, only because of the number of google scholar results of the term. --Minimaki (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that's enough, though? For instance, Google Scholar shows 116,000 hits for Ford Motor Company, and "ford tie rods" generates 15,000 hits. Clearly, the company is something that should be included, where a specific component of a product probably isn't. I don't think anyone would argue that OSS is a legitimate and necessary article, but I don't think every genre of OSS needs its own article unless there's something truly distinct. "Open Office is a productivity suite that belongs in 'Open Source Productivity Suites', TuxRacer is an old game that belongs in 'Open Source Legacy Games', and GNU Chess was ported to Windows, so it belongs in 'Open Source Board Games For Windows'..." is not the best approach.-- Kevin (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I get not a single match on "ford tie rods" when I use the same search as for "open source games" - and that's the very answer, they actually do seem to be much more independently notable than ford tie rods. --Minimaki (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep both articles. As per User:Celarnor., so speaks rohith. 08:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep both. At worst, merge Free Games to Open Source. The dictionary claim was ignorant. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2008 (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.