Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamification (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Courcelles 03:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gamification
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Neologisms used by niche marketing professionals who do not hesitate to engage in intellectual dishonesty. Anthonzi (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've bundled in the other neologism:

--Anthonzi (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Yes, this is a marketing buzzword, much like "user-generated content" and "social networking". But, it is widely used in Silicon Valley, regardless of how silly it is, or how much dislike there is for marketing people. There are a lot of non-trivial sources out there: Forbes, ZDNet, The Guardian, VentureBeat, TechCrunch , Mashable , so it does meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Is it a trendy marketing buzzword? Yes. Is it notable? Unfortunately, yes.--hkr Laozi speak  15:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And merge funware into the Gamification article, since both discuss essentially the same topic.--hkr Laozi speak  15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just a neologism, an easy-to-invent word, just like "wikify" or "wikification".  Really don't think we need an article on this yet. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 16:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly notable (as article author). The article is well sourced, with multiple substantial references in major mainstream sources.  The article is structured to describe an emerging business trend, particularly within the fields of software, web services, and management methods, that applies elements of game mechanics in non-game contexts.   The sources describe it as a phenomenon, trend, technique, etc., not as a buzz-word.  There is at least one book on the subject, some organizations devoted to it, recognized academic and industry experts, and an upcoming conference.  It sounds as if the nominator has a bone to pick with the validity of the field.  There are indeed some detractors who say that the field involves hype or it has all been done before, something that happens with every business trend.  That critique, if duly sourced, may reasonably be added to the article but it does not invalidate the notability of the subject.  But we judge business methods by the interest they generate in reliable sources, not whether they're original or whether they work.  This one has plenty.  Even completely invalid fields like phrenology, and repackaging of existing ideas as a new field (Behavioral  psychology), have articles.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * note - I've added a section on the critique of the field, as well as some new sources that appeared in the week or so since I last edited the article, including one very good corporate blog that calls the field "bullshit" - Wikidemon (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:NEO only applies to neologisms that lack secondary sources, "created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". Since this article does have secondary sources that use the term, and there are plenty of other secondary sources documenting the usage of the term, WP:NEO does not apply, as the entry meets the criteria of WP:N and WP:RS.--hkr Laozi speak  17:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This isn't what WP:NEO is for.  Could this article use work?  Yes, clearly.  But there's no argument here that even remotely survives the breadth of sourcing (and more are available for expansion).  Would that all our articles had the citation support this does!  Nominator's opinions regarding the validity of the marketing and management industries are, furthermore, not compatible with policy. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Promising article which should be developed further in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments/on the fence. This was recreated almost immediately after deletion at AFD, which is naughty. Entries for neologisms require entries about the term, not just entries that use the term; the original entry lacked that, but this one has a couple legit refs. I'm not sure what the relevance of intellectual dishonesty is, unless the suggestion is that the entry itself is dishonest. However, I'm still not convinced there is a consistent usage to this term that makes it notable. For example, the current version of the entry reads "An academic described gamification as a modality of computational problem-solving"... but this refers to a completely different meaning of "gamification" as the rest of the entry, which is about using aspects of gaming in marketing. The current version doesn't fly, but I'm not convinced that there's zero potential here. Hairhorn (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – I'm actually more convinced by the retention side that the term has garned sufficient notability. –MuZemike 07:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has the sourcing.  That should be the end of the story. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (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.