Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crossfire (computer 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 no consensus to delete, therefore keep. Bucketsofg 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossfire (computer game)

Delete - Absolutely no assertion of notability, completely unsourced. The Kinslayer 11:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 11:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - no evidence of notability; does not cite third-party independent sources. Delete unless sourced by end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 11:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong do not delete. This game has its own community and it is being actively developed. It is prominent as the most openly developed free software MMORPG. It is difficult to see what is unsourced in this article - provided that all information is freely available at the project site and that the game itself is free and everyone can install it. The installation disks of some very popular GNU/Linux distributions (e.g. Debian) include Crossfire. --Zinoviev 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, maybe I should explain what I meant by "unsourced". WP:SOFTWARE dictates that "Software is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software's author(s)". There's no evidence in the article of sources that are independent from the software or its creator. If you can find some magazine articles, news reports etc., that mention the software, then add them to the article and I will be happy to change my vote. Walton monarchist89 13:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong do not delete. This game is the biggest and oldest free software MMORPG alive, and not only is it currently very actively developed, but it also has spawned an entire generation of derivative games, such as Daimonin and cf+.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found. BJ^Talk 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources

Crossfire was referenced and summarized in a Linux Journal (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3633) in October, 1999. Also additional review and summary sites can be found at: http://happypenguin.org/show?crossfire , http://freshmeat.net/projects/crossfire/ , http://www.gnomefiles.com/app.php/Crossfire
In an article describing what's an MMORPG on the Spill Group's website (http://www.spillgroup.com/news/2006/07/5972.html), the following reference is made to Crossfire: "Some of the best-established independent projects are AWplanet, Crossfire, Daimonin, RuneScape, Endless Online, Star Wars Combine, Eternal Lands, Dream Blue Online and Planeshift.", underlining the obvious importance of Crossfire (and Daimonin) in the realm of independent RPGs.
In an interview on RPG Codex, S.C.O.U.R.G.E. developer's Gabor says he "enjoyed" Crossfire, and compares the "headquarters" level to a Crossfire's town (http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=111)
In a linuxfr weblog entry, Olivier Migeot posted a news about the release of a new version of the game, giving a brief description of it and a positive evaluation of it (http://linuxfr.org/2002/01/05/6558.html).

Reply - These sources seem adequate, so if you add them to the article I will change my vote to Keep. Walton monarchist89 18:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to demonstrate notability, above sources are passing mentions only or 'review' by allowing visitors to rank the game themselves - IE completely unusable. WP:SOFTWARE does cite Linux distributions as acceptable for WP articles, however this seems to have been disputed over for some time now and current discussion on the talk page makes it seem that this aspect of the proposed guideline has not got community support. Whether that really is the case or not, an aspect of a proposed guideline which is disputed is a pretty weak nail to hang an article on. I'd be happy to change to keep if some reviews or other reliable sources appeared (and would help use them as references, if needed?). QuagmireDog 21:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but still, since inclusion in the dists is so very vague as a yardstick of notability, what's a better alternative? Discussed in publications and having been included in a number of Linux dists for a long period of time and still, apparently, doing somewhat well? You know, the spirit of our notability criteria is not "has this thing been discussed in print?" It's "is this thing widely known?"... This thing, I'd say, is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The game has a passing mention in the Linux Journal, and it really is a passing mention (part of which is also referencing Happy Penguin, itself simply confirming that CF actually exists). Every link listed (and that I've found googling) stack up to nothing more than "CF is a rogue-like MMORPG that exists". What we're left with is that:

CF may be well-known in the appropriate circles.
CF has been distributed and live for a number of years.
It may be the earliest example of its type.
Other games have been spawned from it.

None of which is going to provide sources to build an article, none of which strikes me as a case for keeping this 3 year old stub. If nothing good has been shaken out of the tree now, three years into its existence, then I'd say it was a good time to pull down the shutters. If Daimonin can be sourced, some info on CF could be included in a development section there. "CF exists" and "D evolved from CF", cited, would be enough to anchor it there. That'd pretty much say everything that's here anyway and hopefully get D's article rolling. QuagmireDog 01:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep of the sources above, the only one that appears to be an independent WP:RS is the linux journal article, but it's not very substantial. Is there anything better? — brighterorange (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Better third party independent reliable sources needed if this article is to last. —Ocatecir ^Talk 23:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, Crossfire is older than heaven (it has historical weight) and has been included in major Linux distributions for, ungh, just about as long as I can remember (which is to say, it was there when I started using Linux, circa 1996). My memory is a bit hazy there, but that's not the point - the point is that this is old and widely known. rank #8637 in Popcon isn't very awful either. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being described by a Linux publication and being part of a Linux distribution is notable. It would help a lot of the "oldest" claim could be substantiated. -Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing with Mgm above that being described in a Linux publication and being part of Linux distributions is notable. Also I'm unsure if this is sufficient to provide evidence of age, but here are some Mailing list archives (dating back to 1992) and historic version archive (files in one archive timestamped at February 1992). Would be good if someone can turn up some other things. --AlDragon 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and there was also (I think) a historic list of roguelikes (or a FAQ of roguelikes), where it was discussed as a possible idea on how to implement a multiplayer roguelike. I can't remember a whole lot though... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete. Needs more sources in the article, one mention in a Linux mag and being part of Linux distros is not enough. NicM 16:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Such as? --Zinoviev 10:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those demonstrating its notability. NicM 17:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    - You didn't answer me. --Zinoviev 21:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes I did. When the article includes sufficient sources to demonstrate its notability per WP:NOTABILITY, or even something towards WP:SOFTWARE. NicM 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        Isn't it clear enough what my question was or you intentionally don't want to understand it? “Such as?” means – “Please explain what is the meaning of sufficient sources according to you” (provided that according to you an article in Linux Journal and the inclusion of the game in Linux distributions for years is not enough). --Zinoviev 09:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't feel the need to retype WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOFTWARE here. NicM 11:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
        
        I see one URL to a brief mention on a website in the article. This is not "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works." NicM 11:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. These sources need to go into the article, not just sit here in the deletion discussion. --Alan Au 23:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do they need to go into an article that is going to be deleted? Almost all articles about games (and not only) for GNU/Linux must be deleted because they don't have "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works." Some time ago I used Wikipedia to learn about the P2P programs (even those not in wide use). Now I know that instead of reading these articles I had to propose them for deletion. --Zinoviev 17:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll take it on good faith that you're joking around, but flippant comments are hard to treat seriously. Do you want to improve the article or not? --Alan Au 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.