Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake2


 * 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 - as per consensus in this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jake2

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A Java port of a commercial video game. This product never reached version 1. I not even sure if the project is still active. This could be a single line in the Quake II article. Certainly not enough quality information for an article. Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 17:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The port is complete and working, even is the version number did not reached version 1, this is not a Beta (and I'm not a developer of this game). The forum is still active (I checked just today). This project is not interesting because it is a port of Quake II IMHO, but because it is a straight port in Java (it was even mentioned by a Sun developer in a white paper about JOGL (the paper is quoted in the article). Hervegirod (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The port is complete and working, even is the version number did not reached version 1, this is not a Beta (and I'm not a developer of this game). The forum is still active (I checked just today). This project is not interesting because it is a port of Quake II IMHO, but because it is a straight port in Java (it was even mentioned by a Sun developer in a white paper about JOGL (the paper is quoted in the article). Hervegirod (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete – are there anything else from reliable secondary sources besides the paper mentioned above? MuZemike 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not dead. Interesting and relevant to Quake II and JOGL. • Anakin (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same as Anakin (I explained above). I also just added more references, including an interesting academic paper on a grid re-engineering of Jake2, a Sun direct reference to Jake2 in their Java 6 release notes, a Joystiq source about the use of jake2 to experiment eye tracking in 3D games, and an O'Reilly source. In fact this port has often been used to discuss the possibility of performance intensive 3D games in Java, because it is a straight port of a well known C game (and because of that easy to compare to its C reference), and it was maybe the first one to use the JOGL library. Hervegirod (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - WP:N suggests that Jake2 needs to be the subject of significant third-party coverage. I'd like to see something more than one paragraph (Joystiq) or a page of screenshots (hexus). The Amador/Alexandre/Gomes paper might swing it for me if it can be shown that it has been peer reviewed. Since the information is largely verifiable, merging to other articles is a possibility. Marasmusine (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is explicitly cited as one successful example of a Java Web start app in Sun's Java 6 update 10 release note (one page) ? There's also O'Reilly article. There's two academic papers (one dating from 2006, one 2009), one specifically about using it in Grid computing, the other cited by other papers ? Plus the part of WP:N you refer is a guide on when to add an article about an academic, not about citing academic work in an article (even if the article you mentioned was cited by other research papers, I added the source). BTW, the Joystick article was quoting another academic paper which was also added as source. Hervegirod (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My main query is if the academic papers are peer reviewed or not (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for academic paper to be peer reviewed in order to be used as a source. What WP:RS say is Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available, not that only peer-reviewed publications can be used. Plus it adds The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. The paper about eye detection in video games, which used Jake2 for one of its experiments, was part of (ACM's SIGCHI conference proceedings, the world's leading organization in Human–Computer Interaction according to wikipedia), and was cited 5 times in other papers according to portal.acm.org.Hervegirod (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If this gives us one reliable source, then I'm considering N. Could be a good starting point for a broader subject such as, well, Eye detection Face detection, which is the subject of the paper. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  I 'mperator 23:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Not notable at the moment  Chzz  ►  01:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the references that have been added and other improvements by Hervegirod since the AfD nomination. The work that has gone into this article seems to address the nominators original concerns above. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – there is plenty there now that demonstrates sufficient notability. MuZemike 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Changed from "weak delete" per sources found.
 * 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.