Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenRA


 * 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

OpenRA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not display notability as provided by secondary reliable sources. (Take a look at --all trivial mentions by sources or blog comments.) Izno (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Some links to secondary source: IJK_Principle (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC) A few more: IJK_Principle (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: An engine for remaking old games. Most of these should really belong on the article of the game they are trying to replicate. FreeCol is another one of these, and those people who wrote it did not even bother trying to provide references. Too bad that there is no software notability guideline in existence. Clones are rarely notable on their own. Ceosad (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A review by TotalBiscuit
 * An article on Kotaku
 * Mention in an article by Rock, Paper, Shotgun
 * An article on BetaNews
 * A news article on Softpedia
 * Comment: Actually, Kotaku and TotalBiscuit have made me somewhat reconsider this. Ceosad (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Review by Macworld
 * Review by Downloadcrew
 * That's interesting, both articles are by the same guy and with same text. Even though it doesn't seem both websites are owned by the same company. IJK_Principle (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as News and browser found some links but nothing particularly better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - A custom VG/RS Google Search returned me the typical Metacritic page, but there are no critic reviews or even user reviews. Other things I found are a Blue's News page, a foreign-language page about a mod for the game and the rest are just brief mentions. --TL22 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - As there are no extensive reviews beyond TotalBiscuit's video, I have to keep my vote for deletion. Ceosad (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as teetering on the edge of passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. MacWorld looks good, but it's by the same author (Mike Williams) that a bunch of other articles on OpenRA are. Kotaku looks okay, though its focus is 50/50 on Tiberian Sun itself and the engine. Unsure how we treat TB reviews for RS purposes, but it's an okay supplement since he has credentials. BetaNews is not in-depth, I wouldn't call it a reliable source, and I can't find author's (Mike Williams) credentials. Gry is not in-depth, but okay otherwise. Softpedia is a download site and so interested in reviewing what they host -- I would class this as not really independent or reliable. DownloadCrew is a copy-paste from MacWorld, definitely unreliable. The rest are passing mentions. Overall, it feels WP:TOOSOON, but I expect major outlets will cover it at some point when it gets its 5 minute spotlight. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was effectively unsourced. I had to rewrite it. Digged a bit to find some quality sources even though that is not easy on the topic of game engine recreations. Matthias M. (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid those aren't quality sources. The couple the are reliable, are extremely short mentions. The others are either not independent or are not reliable (such as WP:VG/RS). —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't try to apply the guidelines for video games on this. This is effectively a free software project. Compare it to OpenTTD, Stratagus or Spring Engine instead. Matthias M. (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Classic AFD error there per WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Izno (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I added academic sources and software metrics. Being featured on GitHub Showcase, the Mono project and Microsoft Developer Network should prove notability. The SEO optimized articles you found via your search engine are mostly download page click bait. The independent LWN.net and Phoronix are really valuable sources. I left Rock Paper Shotgun and Kotaku in for reference although they are very light-hearted and superficial. Matthias M. (talk) 07:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For GNG purposes: Delft and thesis are not independent -- they contributed to the project. Softpedia is a software hosting site that hosts the engine, they are not impartial and thus not reliable. LWN is "reader-supported", the author in question is not on staff . Phoronix looks semi-okay, but it non in-depth and the owner is the editor, which makes for no editorial oversight. MSDN is a blog entry and not reliable. Mono is just a list entry. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:54, 29 November 2015 (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.

Note: The page was moved to http://content.gpwiki.org/OpenRA wikia:opensource:OpenRA instead. Matthias M. (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)