Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narrative game


 * 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 draftify. (non-admin closure)  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  04:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Narrative game

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After some deliberation and much searching, this appears to be a non-notable neologism. I haven't found a source that gives a definition like the one currently included in the lede, and the scope of the term is so broad as to be unhelpful. Thus, the article becomes an essay that lumps together all the ways in which narrative concepts are applied in games (how narrative is used within games, how players create their own narratives, how narrative helps learning, game awards for best narrative). In the case of the latter, I couldn't even find a definition for the "best narrative" awards, so those awards appear to acknowledge excellence in a quality of a game (narrative/sound/graphics) rather than the best of a genre called the "narrative game". Also note that the article was originally titled "Games as narrative" and written by User:Games as Naratives—it looks like it was written for a college class. Anything that needs to be said on this topic would fit into the articles on Narrative or our Glossary of video game terms, but I don't see any content worth merging. czar 17:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  17:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  czar  17:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The general concept is notable -- see Writing video games: can narrative be as important as gameplay? -- and there are games where the mechanics are pure narrative such as Consequences. Andrew D. (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Narrative can be emphasized in any time-based medium—the question is whether games with narratives have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) so as to warrant a separate article. Such an article would require a whole lot of original research (e.g., see the current structure of the article). czar  22:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Such sources clearly exist. For another example, see the Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Andrew D. (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That source proves my point—it's about the applied use of narrative in games, not "narrative games". Let's see what other editors think. czar  01:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do see the term "narrative game" used (e.g. ), though it's by no means as concrete a term as, say, puzzle game. The usage is enough that I might not go for outright deletion and instead redirect it somewhere, but I don't know how much actual significant coverage there is of the topic. I think a broad strokes article about narrative in games would almost certainly have the coverage to be worth making, though. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - The term appears to be EXTENSIVELY used in academic journals, referring to this topic. I don't mean a few mentions, here or there, but vast numbers of articles pop up in google scholar.  In addition to the coverage by academic sources, current contemporary critics and "reviewers" discuss an analyze the topic.  The term is widespread and well used, countering nom's "non-notable neologism" claim, and regardless of the term, the subject of the topic itself is very clearly notable.  If the term itself was considered a nn neologism (and I contend it is not), the most I would accept would be a move to a more notable title... but this title seems perfectly notable, descriptive, and utilized by plenty of sources.  Fieari (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Care to cite some? czar  18:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Obvious consensus to keep, although whether or not to draft has not been decided. &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to DRAFT space. I'm convinced of the notability of the topic (Andrew's cite to the Routledge Encyclopedia pretty much did it for me).  And although the nominator correctly responds that there is a distinction between a "narrative game" and "the applied use of narrative in games", that distinction strikes me as more semantic than substantive.  Despite this, I think the "keep" discussants are overlooking something important -- the extremely poor state of the article.  Yes, I know that "deletion is not clean-up", but what we have here is largely "uncleanable".  Seriously folks, an Olympics marathon is a narrative game?  So too is a Civil-War battlefield re-enactment?  Trivia games are "narrative"?  And if I understood the second paragraph of the first section correctly, a narrative game need not contain any narrative at all, so long as a player might imagine "what ifs" when playing it?  I see no evidence that this article went through the Article for Creation process, and I see no plausible possibility of it passing through that process in its current state.  Right now, the article is an embarrassment to the project.  Let's move it to Draft space, where someone knowledgeable about the topic can work on it.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I really hate the idea behind WP:TNT. Look, I understand that deleting and starting over is useful when it comes to things like copyvio and clear slander for biographies, but this is just a matter for cleanup.  Maybe severe cleanup, but there's no reason to nuke the history, and while a lot of this stuff is no good, I think at least some is salvagable. Perhaps a series of ugly cleanup tags at the beginning will help. (Incidentally, I think I remember a college class I had that suggested the olympics WERE a narrative game, relating to the gods and whatnot, but I do think trivial pursuit is probably too far.) Fieari (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment While I wouldn't object to moving the page to a draft, and an article on "narrative game" may be appropriate, the content as-is is inappropriate. The Game Awards section should probably be removed, and the education section seems irrelevant to the article's actual subject. The history section, while interesting, isn't sourced and is likely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am also unsure whether when talking about "gaming" here we should divorce video games and tabletop games as separate things: if so, the D&D section is inappropriate; if not, the article needs some severe reworking not to briefly touch upon one single tabletop game. I also think an article on general narrative as it applies to gaming could be worthwhile, with the proper sources backing it up, but much of my current criticisms still apply. (If we decide on that direction, I would suggest moving to Narrative in gaming or Narrative in video gaming as alternate titles.) As it stands, while I would be interested (and maybe even willing to work on if I get the time) an article on either subject, that article is not this one -- and I can't help but wonder if a redirect might be appropriate until such an article is made. Even if it's just to something as broad as game for now. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to draft space per NewYorkActuary. The scope of the article is unnecessarily large. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Draftify. It's a genre of game but it needs a drastic cleanup, not complete deletion.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Draft for now at best as there is enough to suggest an article could be acceptable but any necessary improvements would certainly be welcomed and they should be added thus Draft. SwisterT'wister   talk  22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Userfy At first glance it appears to be a non-notable, uncommonly used term, but perhaps it can be improved and moved back to mainspace eventually.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 08:17, 14 June 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.