Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stratagus


 * 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. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stratagus

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable game. No independent third-party sources. A cleanup tag has been languishing on the article since May 2008. Psychonaut (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Article could be salvaged if better sources were found.RadManCF (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And how many more years do you propose we wait for them to be found? The sources tag has already been there since May 2008. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Originally tagged by User:VDZ. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Some references in the article’s talk page follow. Also, a Google Books search result as well as a a Google Scholar search result.  Considering the wide number of references to this game in reliable publications, I wonder if the nominator made a good-faith effort to see if there were references for this game in reliable sources before nominating it for deletion Samboy (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The following research papers refer to Stratagus, as described on the talk page:


 * Ponsen, M. J. V., Lee-Urban, S., Muoz-Avila, H., Aha, D. W., & Molineaux, M. Stratagus: An open-source game engine for research in real-time strategy games. Technical Report AIC-05-127, Naval Research Laboratory, Navy Center for Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence. 2005.


 * Ponsen, M., Muñoz-Avila, H., Spronck, P., & Aha, D. W. Automatically Generating Game Tactics with Evolutionary Learning. AI Magazine. 2006, Vol. 27, 3.


 * Molineaux, M., Aha, D.W., & Ponsen, M.J.V. Defeating novel opponents in a real-time strategy game. Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games: Papers from the IJCAI Workshop (Technical Report AIC-05-127). 2005.


 * Chan, H., Fern, A., Ray, S., Wilson, N., & Ventura, C. Extending Online Planning for Resource Production in Real-Time Strategy Games with Search. Proceedings of the ICAPS Workshop on Planning in Games. 2007.


 * Marthi, B., Russell, S., & Latham, D. Writing Stratagus-Playing Agents in Concurrent ALisp. Proceedings of IJCAI-05 Workshop on Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games. 2005.


 * Ponsen, M.J.V., Spronck, P., & Tuyls, K. Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning with Deictic Representation in a Computer Game. 18th Benelux Conference on Artificial Intelligence (BNAIC). 2006. Samboy (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Google Scholar, these appear to have a very low number of, or zero, citations. Have any of them appeared in peer-reviewed journals? Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources in article and those located by Samboy. LotLE × talk  20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep people have threatened this article before, and it has always been defended. That alone shows notability, and I do believe somewhere there is a ruling that says if deletion attempts are fought off several times than that helps prove that it is notable. I know there is something like this on Wikiquote but quite frankly the same general rule should apply here. At any rate, like most free engines Linux users like it, free software advocates like it, and as is previously listed in this page, academics like it. Comrade Graham (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe there is no such ruling; in fact, we have a policy to the contrary: WP:CCC. Marasmusine (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Me thinks you might have misinterpreted my point, past support does not make it currently notable but it suggests that it might, and even that was not my defence for the article so I don't see any reason to bother with that further. Just to note I have added the Slashdot article on the FreeCraft cease and desist incident, and if I need to I will dig up some more sources. However, even to those that might question the notability I have to say that the engine itself is notable for its article, but maybe some of the games are not. Bos Wars has its own article, and I would suggest that if I need to satisfy the minority of people who want this, and most other articles, deleted that we merge that into this article and work on making this article talk about the engine and the various game it powers. This includes it from a programming and academic perspective, since there are all those studies listed above. Also, to anyone who will just see this post and threaten the Bos Wars article for deletion rather than merging, I will just that that is a tacky and tasteless tactic. Comrade Graham (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you again, but it sounds like you used a "Well, X has it's own article" argument, then asked us not to look to see if X actually needs an article? Anyway, no matter: I find the O'Reilly-published article by Howard Wen satisfactory for the general notability guidelines, and therefore my opinion is to keep this topic. Marasmusine (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement thanks to that source. Good debate everybody. Just to note again, you have misinterpreted me citing the Bos Wars article. :-P I was not suggesting article notability, I was suggesting a compromise to make one definite article on Stratagus and related games because all together I am sure that they would be pretty damn notable. I was not saying that Bos Wars seems notable and thus the engine probably is. At any rate, we have a result, conesus seems to be forming that we have strengthened sources to at least a certain extent. Yay! Comrade Graham (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The articles from Slashdot and O'Reilly's Linus Dev-Center are sufficient to establish notability ¨¨ victor  falk  06:49, 30 January 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.