Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powergaming


 * 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, consensus is that the topic is notable, and effort is being put into improving the topic. --Taelus (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Powergaming

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. The article violates our no original research policy. The sources cited are all blogs, including GeoCities which was killed off by Yahoo! something like 6 months ago. (!!) If stubbed down to a dictionary definition then, well, you know the routine... JBsupreme ( talk ) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Hard to imagine how this meets Notability guidelines. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your imagination is not a reason to delete. Do you have some evidence, please? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - and I'm ignoring the rules on this one. It's sort of a neologism, but most of this stems from a quasi-jargon term in various and sundry gaming communities.  I predict that this will make its way into common vernacular (yes, I know...), but even accounting for this, it's enough of a common term within the games community that I think it should probably stay here.  If it is deleted, though, no biggie. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Don't need to ignore all rules; see my sources below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, DFW. Good show, sir! =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pcap ping  16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination contradicts itself, saying that the article is original but then complaining about the quality of the sources. If you have nothing to add to this weak argument, please see WP:PERNOM. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stub, then rewrite and possibly rename to power gaming. Note that the one word spelling not used in the scholarly works in this area! There are indeed good references for this topic, e.g. this book chapter, but most of the current contents is not directly supported by such references. Furthermore, several links to google books pages were added to various paragraphs that simply did not support them. Other book sources I found  &mdash;the latter two mostly cite Taylor 2003, found by User:DustFormsWords below. Pcap  ping  06:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it definitely needs work, and probably merging with some or all of its "see also"s. I remember reading an article about this in Dragon (magazine) back in my RPG days; I have no doubt that reliable sources do exist, just not online ones.--Father Goose (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a large collection of Dragon, so I'll see if I can take a look through in the next few days and see if there's a good reference, since that may be as close to a reliable source as there is for the RPG community. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article I remember is mid-late 80s, and it had definitions of all sorts of related player types: munchkins, monty haulers, etc. This page has a good basic set of definitions of those terms, completely consistent with my understanding of them, although I doubt it would be accepted as a reliable source.  "Monty haul" turns up a lot of good sources for related terms: .--Father Goose (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe "The way we really play" from Dragon #106? BOZ (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right, though I haven't seen the article in 20 years. It probably won't have the term "powergaming" per se, but I remember first reading about the general concept, and various terms for it, there.--Father Goose (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not "powergaming", just "Monty Haul" from my cursory once-over. In the 2nd edition days, I remember the term "Min-maxing". It's really all the same thing, or all part of the same thing; your stats/benefits/rewards are more important than even the fun of the game itself! BOZ (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I suggested the merger; min-maxing is just powergaming applied to character creation and monty haul is powergaming at the campaign/setting level.--Father Goose (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems easy to write upon this notable topic. I have added a good source and done some rewriting.  The article may be improved further in accordance with our editing policy and so should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There is definitely a notable article here. The concept has been mentioned in books and articles (sometimes as "powergaming", sometimes "power gaming") and seems to have been adopted by business and stock companies as well. Doing some more research now, but I believe this article needs fixing, not deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManicSpider (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep - Notable enough to inspire satire here. Wizards of the Coast write an editorial in their regular column on the topic here.  Dice of Doom (a blog with editorial oversight) runs a six part series on it starting here.  Always Strike First (which appears to have editors although it's not clear) discusses it in a wargaming context here.  Glenn Blacow's early approach to player typing from 1980 lists "powergamers" as one of his four basic player types (link here) and Bestheda developer Ken Rolston uses it casually in an IGN interview here in a way that shows he expects any reader to know what it means.  The term's prevalent enough to have become a term IT companies use to describe a high-end gaming rig and it's been appropriated as the name of a prominent pro-gaming team.  Poor sources and poor content aren't an AfD issue where the topic is itself notable; if you have problems with the quality of the content feel free to fix it. Please consult WP:BEFORE before making AfD nominations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, just realised nom is JBSupreme who I know normally DOES use WP:BEFORE. Probably could have used a bit more rigour this time though, dude. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per references added since article was put up for deletion. Okip  02:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of which were fake . Not hard to see why WP:ARS has acquired such a "reputation". Pcap ping  06:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my (online) sources above are good, and if you're looking for offline sources try Play between worlds: exploring online game culture‎ (Taylor, 2006) or The pleasures of computer gaming: essays on cultural history, theory and aesthetics (Swalwell, 2008), which both explore the motivations of power gamers and gaming community reactions to that play style. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I am quite offended by being accused of adding faked references. The one you cite here was NOT a fake reference, though there may have been a more pertinent reference I could have used. It was used as an example of how the concept is now being applied in other fields apart from gaming. I understand that you are just trying to make Wiki better, but would suggest you read WP:Bite and WP:GOODWILL before suggesting fellow editors make up sources in future. ManicSpider (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (Sorry, I meant WP:GOODFAITH)ManicSpider (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ManicSpider, I think the issue is not that the sources are nonexistent. It's that they touch on subjects only vaguely related to the topic. The sources you added do not mention the phrase "power-gaming", at least not on the pages you lined to, and do not back up the paragraph in the article to which they are attached. Do you see the problem with this? In a borderline AfD, adding spurious sources could give the article the false appearance of being properly sourced, and result in a "keep" result when it really shouldn't. Not to mention, it is misleading to our readers. I do not doubt that you have acted in good faith, but certain members of the Article Rescue Squadron have been known to concoct phony sources on purpose to game the system and subvert the AfD process. This, of course, reflects badly on the entire ARS and explains why, as Pcap notes, the ARS has developed a reputation for dodgy behaviour. A shame, because there are quite a few ARS members who do good work and edit in good faith. Perhaps those editors ought to pull the problematic ones into line, but that's probably a subject for a different discussion. Reyk  YO!  00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Reyk, all the sources do mention the term, which is how I found them using a google search. I haven't been editing for that long, so perhaps I have made an error, but all the sources I cited were examples of how the concept of power gaming is used, which is what the article was referring to. I apologise if I've made an error and the sources were not substantial enough, but they definitely all did mention the phrase and they definitely were all put up in good faith. That is why I was so distressed by the allegations above. ManicSpider (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on the Google news and Google Book search links at the top of the AFD. I see plenty of places this is used.  The term has been around since the early days of Ultima Online.  Some people are obsessed with stats, and would take up mining, and do it compulsively, just to watch their strength raise.  You do something you wouldn't do otherwise, and are not required to do at any stage of the game, just to get your stats up in the fastest way possible.   D r e a m Focus  03:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly any. A few mentions of the word in books. The news links are completely irrelevant. Searches do not write an article. Pcap ping  06:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pohta, with respect given to your passion, I've cited now eight reliable sources above, six of which constitute significant coverage and two of which are indications of the term's mainstream usage, which took me all of ten minutes to find using Google. If a person's not equipped, skill-wise, to use Google to turn up sources relating to a special interest area, then possibly they shouldn't be making AfD nominations in that area. I'm saying that in the general; JBSupreme's work is generally good, this appears to just be an abberation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This mainly due to the difference in spelling, see above. Just clinking the links wasn't insta-enlightenment as advertised. Pcap ping  07:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The first page of results I see for Google news search has . And what about Google book search?  Plenty of valid hits on the first page there.   D r e a m Focus  17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found and my own personal knowledge that this is a fairly commonly used term/idea. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of sources located, though it could definitely use some work. Resistor (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- well attested in reliable sources. The article needs work, but that's a matter for editing, not deleting. Reyk  YO!  00:22, 4 March 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.