Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Eclipse

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Eclipse

edit
Red Eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks from reliable, independent sources. (?) Dearth of dedicated coverage apart from announcements in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. (No reviews?) List of major Creative Commons licensed works#Red Eclipse could work as a redirect target, but that list would be better off only listing independently notable games anyway. czar 02:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the past when this page has come up for deletion, it has been determined that Joystiq, PC Gamer, and Engadget have all been reliable independent sources. Even if some are announcements, each author gives their own personal opinion of the game which is considered to be a "review". While some of the content of the article may not meet the criteria for verifiability, that does not warrant a deletion of the entire article, but rather a clean-up with a request for more sources. Also, to remove the "Indie Game Reviewer" review and references you will need to make a case for it not being a reliable independent source (which is a different topic to it being notable itself as has been noted in past deletion discussions). Red Eclipse has also been used publicly by Microsoft Research in their IllumiRoom project (the article itself has a screenshot with Red Eclipse in it and could be expanded to list the open source projects they used to accomplish the task). I'm not a stranger to this debate. Angeles (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're sort of correct. Yes, a request for cleanup and more sources is reasonable, but that's what you're getting because that's what AFD is, and if more sources can't be found, then it'll be deleted. It's probably just a little more "do or die" than you'd prefer. Also, while its hard to say for sure, as I'm having a hard time locating these deletion discussions of the past, but if said discussion hinged on the type of sources you've presented below...I'm not sure how much stock I'd put into those discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While all these may not meet the criteria, there is certainly more than enough information out there about the project:

: This is the very article I found that led me to Red Eclipse. Can someone please explain to me how it does not fit the bill as a reliable source? I typed in "Open Source FPS" some years back and this came up. When I went to check up on each of the games, they all existed and were exactly as reported in that article. Is About.com some sort of fishy source? Why? Bottom line for me - if the topic is open source FPS games, this is useful information to me. ShaneCRoach (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Please see our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, especially on disclosure, considering that you claim to be the person who is also listed as the lead developer. (2) No, three announcements do not make a product notable. Coverage and external interest needs to be sustained, which is why games usually need several reviews or exceptional coverage otherwise. (3) Indie Game Reviewer was discussed. (4) I see no reliable coverage—apart from the already accounted Joystiq—worth noting in the links above. czar 04:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I will first disclose that I have contributed to the wiki of Red Eclipse . First of all, I don't think almost anyone other than Angeles and Shirepirate have a real COI, me included; their involvement is very minor, and extends to little beyond "we play this and have posted on the forum now and then". Given the open-source nature of the project, this is much more frequent than the proprietary games you are most familiar with.
Secondly, I am surprised you shot down sources as prominent as Joystiq and RPS. I actually know a bit about your background, and how your site arose in during Gamergate, representing the Gamergate side perhaps a little more than the other one. I wouldn't be surprised if you have a strong hate bone for RPS and how they intentionally discard objective criticism. Yes, I read that into you, but if you have such a bias, state it upfront. It's alright, I'm not a fan of RPS either but I can recognise their prominence warrants notability (I'm also not anti-GG, but I wouldn't call myself pro-GG either).
I can however say that it is much more prominent coverage than dozens of other open source games, and even some proprietary ones. Red Eclipse has been known to be included in some German print magazines as well, on the disc. I believe the coverage and its association with IllumiRoom (which caused quite a buzz at the time) are relevant enough to warrant notability status. Within the niche more specifically, Red Eclipse and the Cube engine are absolutely notable. I am therefore led to ask (particularly in light of Angeles's claim of harassment) what led you to target this project specifically, as I find the behaviour unjust and overly demanding, particularly relative to the rest of WP; I say that as a Wikipedian myself.
Lastly, I think trying to 'win' this discussion by claiming COI and canvassing on everyone won't get you anywhere. Basically everyone here is involved in some way or another. Wikipedia is pretty poor as a platform for discovering ongoing conversations like this, particularly with several AfD conversations ongoing for weeks at a time. You have accepted that we come from a position that has a non-neutral POV, as have we; I request that you do the same, because I very keenly believe that you do, particularly in your evaluation of the sources (which would otherwise give this page a pass). Your insistence upon this topic is an indicator of your greater bias, towards both these sources (you do run OpenCritic afterall) and Red Eclipse (why do you so badly want to delete this page? I believe it's greater than the rules of Wikipedia). My issue is that you attribute this to everyone else and seek to strike down their speech that way, but it is apparently a non-issue for yourself. This matter needs to be addressed. Either we greatly diminish the importance of COI here (because let's face it, that's how this discussion is happening in practice, and there's a WP policy that touches all that if I recall correctly) or you admit your own lack of NPOV. It had to be said. Please don't take the above as a personal attack, it is not meant to be; I only mentioned what is relevant to the discussion at hand.--Yannis A. ✆|☑ 11:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, just wanted to say that Czar (and any other users on this page) are in no way related to OpenCritic? Found this page on Google today and wanted to make it clear. There are only 4 of us on the OpenCritic team and I (CEO) believe I'm the only one on Wikipedia. MattEnth (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well either I have done my duty in identifying myself already by supplying this information on Wikipedia, or you just violated WP:OUTING; so I suggest you choose which one you're going to go with there. My user page was a little out of date showing the former name of the project ("Blood Frontier"), and that has now been fixed, but my real name is enough to identify me as the Lead Developer. WP:COI and WP:NPOV take regard to the content of a page, of which I have not contributed anything but fact checks, grammar, and spelling fixes, and thus falls outside the scope of these policies (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blood_Frontier). I'm also allowed to follow normal procedures when discussing the deletion of the page. Thanks for verifying IGR's status, I agree with the decision they made there and those references should be removed. With regard to the custom Google search, did you put quotes around the name ("Red Eclipse") or did you only do a cursory search? WP:SCNR provides some insight into how questionable the "significant coverage" debate is (though note this is only an essay), because it is only in your opinion so far that the coverage is not significant despite having 10 years of history and at least three reputable sources as well as commercial applications. Angeles (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come on—you put a name on your user page, identify with other developer roles, but don't mention your connection to this game at all in your response and then call it outing? SCNR has no policy weight at Articles for Deletion—significant coverage is literally part of the notability guideline. For the rest, I believe what I've already said should be sufficient. czar 07:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under no requirement to include that information in all my messages when it is already available on Wikipedia, you identified me well enough after all when you added this unnecessary remark on my Talk page, despite the information already being available to you (See WP:WikiBullying and WP:AVOIDABUSE). I'm assuming you're not going to listen to reason, but you should read WP:Overzealous_deletion and more specifically WP:INVALID and WP:TE (everybody has bias. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate), assuming you aren't just on some crusade to win. You've been in a rush to remove the content of this article from the start. I've made it clear who I am and my case regarding the available sources too, so I won't be responding to any more argumentative behaviour. Angeles (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you the same polite message I regularly send any number of editors with potential conflicts of interest. Never has a response been as hostile. Heed your own advice. czar 17:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources listed, I don't know if I'd consider any of them as a WP:RS. Even the GameSpot one - while their staff is reliable, the one listed above is just a user-blog that would fail WP:USERG. The Joystiq one is a reliable source...but its debatable if its significant coverage - its a pretty brief article. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the three announcements discussed. czar 22:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that article isn't a proper review and can't be used. Angeles (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well, I interpret the notability guidelines for reliability & significant coverage that way that the Joystiq source and even the RPS source are sufficient. About "significant coverage" in the RPS ref, while short, the article was specifically about Red eclipse, not only a mentioning as part of an other topic's article, where normally "significant coverage" applies. So, I consider it covered by reliable secondary sources. Also, what is with this MS Research project? no sources findable? Shaddim (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While IllumiRoom received a lot of coverage, there wasn't much mention of the games they used to do this. Here are some links which all show Red Eclipse in the videos and screenshots [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and this video features the game extensively with credit given at the end as well as this longer one. This appeared in notable publications all over the world, but I am not sure if that notability really extends to Red Eclipse. Angeles (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The significant coverage is supposed to be centered around the subject (Red Eclipse) not tanentially related things (Illumiroom), so that sourcing really wouldn't help in the terms of the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the situation is that easily answerable: while the paper is clearly not about Red Eclipse (or SupertuxKart), the researchers selected this game as example for an open source shooter. I think this has weight, Red Eclipse was used for the majority of analysis and presentations, so is core part of that paper. IllumiRoom_CHI2013 by Microsoft Research "The majority of the illusions were paired with an open-source first-person shooter (Red Eclipse). This created a rich, interactive experience, enabled by access to source code. The Snow illusion was paired with a racing game with a snow level (SuperTuxKart 3), triggered with controller input." Together with the reliable secondary sources Joystiq and RPS it seems for me above the notability threshold. Shaddim (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a longer review from a reliable (but in German) secondary source: Red Eclipse for Windows "Die CHIP Redaktion sagt: "Red Eclipse" ist ein kostenloser Open-Source-Ego-Shooter, der durch viele Maps und eine rasante Spielmechanik punktet." on Chip.de Shaddim (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a review for the game under the previous (?) "Blood frontier" name on the Hungarian Gamestar Blood Frontier: ingyenesen letölthető! (hint to Angeles: this name change / predecesor project should be mentioned in the article's develeopment/history section) Shaddim (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I don't have a lot of deep commentary to add here. I have considered open source gaming, and specifically open source FPS gaming, as a topic of personal interest for going on five years now, and Red Eclipse seems to me to be clearly quite notable in that admittedly niche area of interest. ShaneCRoach (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that ShaneCRoach (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Confirmed, this user is a member of the Red Eclipse community who forgot to mention their involvement as requested. Angeles (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::: I didn't "forget to mention" it. I find the meta discussion about who found out about this topic and from where entirely off topic and consciously chose not to be dragged into it. Either the sources exist or they do not. There are supposedly hard copy mentions of this game. If they exist, hand over the body. Otherwise let's turn the article into a redirect to Cube 2, edit the Cube 2 entry appropriately, and move on. ShaneCRoach (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

No offense, but it doesn't matter whether or not whether or not you find it to be "off-topic" - its not an opinion-based matter. The Wikipedia guidelines say you're supposed to disclose any connections to the subject, or whether or not you created the article, in these discussions. Even beyond that though, as is, you're stance will also likely be discarded anyways, as it doesn't seem to amount to anything more than a baseless WP:ITSIMPORTANT statement, which isn't valid. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:::::I stated my connection to the topic. I am interested in open source FPS games, of which there are a scant handful in existence at all. I also stated that if some of these hard copy references were produced, that would solve the issue of sourcing. I'm fine with my vote not counting as the issue is, as you say, more a matter of demonstrable fact than of voting. Either the sources exist or they do not. What I object to is being personally dragged into a contest of wills between the Wikipedia admins on the one hand and the Red Eclipse admins on the other. I am not here as an advocate for either, but as someone who has an interest in Open Source FPS games. Would that anyone involved in this topic actually had the best interests of the topic itself at heart. Odd that no one wants to talk about possibly pointing the reference to Cube 2. No... no the entire "discussion" of this "topic" hinges on personal allegations of some sort of untoward personal involvement with Red Eclipse. I've been a member of their forums for a grand total of two weeks I think. I actually tend to spend most of my time there dealing with issues specific to its interaction with Blender.... The idea that I have some sort of untoward tie that I have failed to report is specious. What, does Wikipedia have a ban on discussing anything to do with Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia? People will talk. That is not "canvassing". ShaneCRoach (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC) :::::Asking myself why I care one way or the other what happens to this article, I stumbled across the list of "open-source shooter" video games here on Wikipedia. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Open-source_shooter_video_games Listed among them is Unreal Engine. Yes, Unreal Engine is "open source", but its license is a trap. It has become more and more common. It's free for you to use as long as you do not do anything financially useful with it. Then, suddenly, it is no longer "free". My interest is complete open source and cooperative development of resources, and of all the places to find information about that specific topic under attack, Wikipedia is perhaps the most shocking. One of the main draws to Red Eclipse for me during my research was its parkour system. Where exactly am I supposed to find out about this information if people are systematically getting rid of information about open source shooters on Wikipedia? What is the driving motive behind deleting content useful for researching specific topics? I just don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneCRoach (talk • contribs) 15:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A crusade started out of a misguided attempt to save the page from someone I assumed to be hostile in bad faith, and the results of that is my responsibility. It is clear that we as a project and as a community still have a lot of room to grow, and I apologise for the behaviour that has been exhibited both here and off-wiki. Angeles (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Keep This is a case of WP:Overzealous_deletion, the article is well written and the subject is more obscure than any of the labels being applied by others, which is common for open source video games. It should be noted that "Red Eclipse" is a re-branding of "Blood Frontier", and the entire project dates back to 2005 with mentions on many gaming sites and in hard copy gaming magazines all over the world (the problem is, these aren't available online and can't be verified). The project created the AI that is now available in Cube_2:_Sauerbraten and has been a major player in driving the development of the Cube family of engines/games. It was also an instrumental part of the IllumiRoom demonstrations, which seems like a very notable accomplishment. It is also available in all major Linux distributions and gaming distribution channels (except Steam). Angeles (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Angeles (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Has consensus been reached? Jfault (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This user has a close involvement with the subject of the article being discussed. Angeles (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only sources are re-posts about an announcement and wiki articles. Additionally, all but one keep votes here are people canvassed by the lead developer. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 06:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's not enough third party coverage to meet the WP:GNG. There's a couple usable sources in all of this, but they're just short articles that are brief product announcements, not significant coverage. A vast majority of the sources cited just don't meet WP:RS - they're obscure blogs and WP:USERG-violating material. It's a clear case of WP:BOMBARD with the sources and WP:SPA with all these bogus !votes. (I've seen "overzealous deletion" cited more in this discussion in the last 48 hours than in my entire 7 years on Wikipedia - that's about as clear cut as it gets when it comes to misguided collaboration off-wiki.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's certainly been a lot of interesting back and forth over this, I think it's safe to say several parties have not handled themselves in the best way they could have. While responses from the game's community were more heated than they should have been it's hard to deny that it is a testament to the game's relevance as an open source software, though that is not what this discussion is supposed to determine. As mentioned above in my keep vote, I've played this game for a few years now and certainly have a conflict of interest over seeing the article deleted, 'twould be sad indeed. Though I am not one of the game's creators I've made some small contributions to it's development and still enjoy playing it to this day.

While the initial interested party czar and a couple others here have made some good points about a lack of reliable sources, I still see this as something that can be easily remedied by citing them appropriately. The game does have significant media coverage, and while granted this may be interpreted subjectively by each party I think several of the articles do meet the bare minimum standard for notability by Wikipedia's own guidelines. It would be a shame to just let the discussion die while some statements of dubious veracity have been said here on this page about the game's lack of notability. So let's take a look at these specifically:

In the above link we see what I assume to be either a professional blogger for the site that took enough interest to write an article about it not during or even near a release time (and several years after the game's initial release, in fact), likely because of the lack of quality open source games available on that platform. They took the time to do their own original research, documented it and shared their opinion. Insignificant as it may be this is a notable review and qualifies as media coverage by Wikipedia's standards.

In this link we see one of the site's official team take the time to review the game after a good playthrough. overall opinions were shared, rating was applied, positives and negatives were outlined, and even some original screenshots were added (broken links now!). Just because egmr isn't a top review site does not mitigate the importance of notable reviews and valid media coverage. Open source games are doomed to lurk in the shadows forever, after all!

This is an example of (from what i can tell) a paid blogger who wrote an article for makeuseof about the game. It contains all the elements of a valid review and was written by (as per definition) a paid professional. If someone knew nothing about Red Eclipse and happened upon this review, it is safe to say they would have a clear idea or not by the time they had finished reading it if they wanted to try the game for themselves.

Another example of a paid blogger that did their research. While brief, the review is an accurate and original description of the game and is even featured on a well known site. It was written approximately a month after the game left it's old Blood Frontier branding and adopted the name Red Eclipse, but does not contain any sign of a typical release announcement. It is able to stand on it's own quality and validity without needing to divert users to the Red Eclipse site to find out more.

There are others, but are these examples not enough? It is important to remember the obscurity of open source titles when deciding on the validity of a source for it. You need to look in-depth at the content and not simply dismiss it when you've never heard of it. Whether this is seen as simply biased badgering to prevent the page from being deleted or not, I hope it is constructive to further healthy discussion. Whatever the outcome of the final consensus at least a fair argument has been made for both sides. Shirepirate (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The makeuseof link is not written by a professional afaik (senior at UT?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.66.95 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is broad coverage with several (also international) reliable, independent secondary sources (C't, Der Standard, Gamestar.hu Chip.de, Phoronix, Joystiq, RPS etc). Additionally, the game was significant part of a scientific publication, which has weight. cheers Shaddim (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)1[reply]
  • Delete at best and wait for better if ever, as although the article is sourced and informative, I would've then considered accepting, but since it is still questionable, we can wait for assuringly better. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as the article is "informative and sourced", please specify what is still questionable, as the article's references were significantly improved since the start of the discussion. The article has a broad coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources now, significant coverage is shown. cheers Shaddim (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as mentioned before, most everything presented are extremely brief product announcements or tangentially related to the subject. I'm not familiar with these foreign language sources, so it's hard to tell whether or not they'd be considered reliable, but regardless, I'm not sure how helpful "An extremely short review in German done so far back that the game was named something else" is going to be regardless... Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Extremely brief product announcements or tangentially related to the subject." is not true anymore. I hope we an agree on "broad coverage", which should have also weigth. (+being a non-tangential part of a product and scientific publication) About the "depth" while some of these secondary sources are indeed brief, some are deeper reviews, and additionally over several years, languages etc. Overall, this should be enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. In detail, fullfilled aspects without a doubt: verifiablity, "Reliable secondary sources", "Independent of the subject/not affiliated" (while here was some heated misfocussed discussion, the found sources are clearly independend). The discussion currently revolves only around "Significant coverage", therefore here word by word from Wikipedia:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources ([Check]) that are independent of the subject ([Check]), it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." About "directly and in detail": The secondary reviews and even announcements addressed RE directly and as main topic. The only question remains what is "in detail". Here I would argue when "in detail" means "decribing the article's object" satisfying are Phoronix, Gamestar Chip, Der Standard, even PC Gamer is more than an anouncement. Overall, the current width of sources makes the article to one of the better sourced gaming articles in WP, it is a good/acceptable quality article for a more notable game than many other unchallenged articles. I have the fear we would treat the game and article not fair by applying policies needlessly stricter than other articles I have seen in the gaming domain, for which I see no apparant reason. While the discussion went out of control at times, this should not influence the outcome of the deletion request. Way around, I can understand the communities frustration that a game which is mentioned as one of the 5 top OSS shooters, which exists for more than a decade, has still active development and an active community (we saw their envolvement here) just becomes unnotable after 5 years of article existence, is a confusing change and let new editors understandable doubt the reasonablity of our policies. And this is not their problem but a WP problem. So, lets give them some slack and let this article live, they showed good will and their intent to work constructive on the article. cheers Shaddim (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you're a bit hung up on using the term "product announcement". The emphasis isn't so much the "announcement", it's on the "short" part. In addition to these being sources on the more obscure side - I spot checked a few, and they're typically about 6-7 short sentences long - They're very brief and light on content, and its difficult to write an article around that. Proponents of the article talk about all the content present, but a large portion of the article goes unsourced, and should technically be removed. Entire sections even. If we removed all of the unsourced content, we'd likely be left with a little stub of an article. And these tiny sources that say very little wouldn't go very far in improving that. (Please note what I'm saying is based off the very concept that you're citing above - being able to write about the subject in detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Entire sections going unsourced = writing using original research. The article's current state is a massive violation of this.)
  • The shoddy quality of other questions has no bearing on whether or not this article should be kept or deleted. If you feel rules are not being applied fairly, then you are welcome to help by nominating some of these other poor other for deletion to even things out.
  • In the same vein, it's not necessarily that the subject "fell out of notability after 5 years", its just that no one caught it until now. Think of it this way: Lets say someone created a hoax article in 2010, and it didn't get caught until today? Did Wikipedia have a pro-hoax article stance in 2013? Do we keep the hoax because no one raised any issues with it the last 6 years? Do we keep it because there's worse hoaxes out there? No, of course not - now that we've noticed it, and know that Wikipedia doesn't allow hoaxes, we deleted it. Same kind of thing here, its just that its about our notability criteria instead. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on the assertion "shoddy": Red Eclipse has not a shoddy article, better than many other articles, what makes this deletion request absurd & dangerous as the consequence would be that we have to delete many, many more. Which I think would be not in the interest of WP. Such extrem intepretations of policies were not applied up to now in game articles. Way around, it seems that some editors try to establish a new practice which has no consensus and is not backed by previous practices & precedent. Which seems to be confirmed by your recommendation of "by nominating some of these other poor other for deletion to even things out.". No, the solution is not "just in the average", but proper justice per instance, like in Red Eclipse's case. "6-7 sentences" is not short, also it is not clearly defined what is short. Clearly, there is more and broader reception available than the shortest form of mentioning ("announcement") which should be enough (especially if we acknowledge the amount of). I can argue, according to WP:notability ("does not need to be the main topic of the source material."), that the threshold is reached also for the IllumiRoom source as Red Eclipse was non-tangible aspect of this paper, but primary test object. And if we take the broader reception into account, inclusion into official linux distro repos & digital distributions platforms, we are again above the notability threshold. We have a broad and for a long time ongoing notable reception of Red Eclipse. Shaddim (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"but a large portion of the article goes unsourced, and should technically be removed. Entire sections even. If we removed all of the unsourced content, we'd likely be left with a little stub of an article. And these tiny sources that say very little wouldn't go very far in improving that." This is not true as the sourcing would be vary easy as the requirements for sources for non-controversial facts are lower than for establishing notability. Primary sources would be OK, but also most can be easily mapped to the ~10 good reliable, secondary sources. No, Red Eclipse is and can be further well sourced. Shaddim (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree then, because to me it looks a lot more like a small collection of very short sources of a fringe-at-best quality. You're free to your interpretation of course, but I think there's a reason why we keep seeing the "Delete" !votes roll in despite your lengthy defense of the article... Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, but it seems the original conclusion by the OP is taken over by the new participants instead of taking a in detail look with the new sources. I'm also not sure of the negative impact of the (non-helpful but understandable) community involvement, which should have no impact. In general I think this would be a weakly founded decision for delete with potentially long reaching negative impact. For sure the Red Eclipse community would take that badly, for understandable reasons. In the end, we have flexibility to improve WP, and deletion of content for corner-case formal reasons is seldom an improvement. Shaddim (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments keep on referring to a "dangerous" precedent from the deletion of this article, as other articles of similar quality and references would be eligible for deletion. If it's a slippery slope you're worried about, don't be, as I can say as a neutral participant in this discussion that the project would gladly see every article with unsatisfactory sourcing and notability be deleted. Unfortunately, they often do fly under the radar. Also, really, part of what makes Wikipedia so great is that it's built upon encyclopedic content and it doesn't have the obligation to reserve articles on the basis of what a subject matter's supporters may think. It seems like you may have a fundamental misunderstanding about our intentions and objectives here. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the easyness you throw around the buzz word "encyclopedic" let me assume that you didn't understood the ambiguity, fragility and complexity associated with this term and the associated notability. Which we were barely able to approximate into too many policy page. If you have not read and heard up to now, this essay, describes why notability as entry threshold for content is the weakest & most insignificant, while most controversial, of our policies. Wasting too many authors' time since the beginning. Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Encyclopedic" isn't a buzzword when you're dealing with an online encyclopedia- it's a principle. Furthermore, that essay, (which only is an essay afterall), concerns the differences in length and stylization, not notability, which indicates that you didn't actually read it, but Googled key words you hoped to throw in my face. And, do you not have a defense for the actual notability of this topic, aside from there being other articles with unsatisfactory references that might have fans that will be offended? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an principle but an ideal or vision ...which we try to approximate desperately by vague and long winded policies. There is nothing natural or principle about "encyclopedic", beside the compromise we create and agree on to follow. Your other remark is hilarious as I brought up multiple sources and argumentations very specific to this article. Shaddim (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 02:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep. There is broad secondary reliable and independent reception available: Phoronix, Gamestar Chip, Der Standard, PC Gamer, which is clearly "more than a trivial mention", which is the policy requirement. And there is a product, IllumiRoom, with a peer-reviewed publication, which was developed under use of Red Eclipse, specifically referring to its properties. Comment the community controversy should not at all influence the outcome of this deletion request. Vice versa, it should be seen with more modesty by WP authors and establishment as another indication to critical inspect our own procedures and policies as more and more our procedures getting more and more decoupled from out-side world needs and understanding. Way around, that the article topic's community came here and tried hard to understand our opaque and byzantine policies and procedures and tried to address the raised remarks should be praised. And that a big and for 10 years ongoing community exist should be seen as serious sign that the original deletion request was shortsighted and inflexible regarding the notability, interpreting a weakly worded single policy excessively literal and bureaucratic, instead applying the vision and spirit of WP as growing, comprehensive compendium of human knowledge from all domains. Shaddim (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Shaddim (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

  • Comment - Please refrain from repeating !votes. I can see what you would like to do is have a consensus to ignore the rules. I don't agree with that in this circumstance as I feel the topic is not encyclopaedic. - Pmedema (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if I did wrong with re-voting, this is the first time I participate in a "relisted" deletion request, which I understood wrongly, it seems, as reset. About your second point, I don't urge for an "ignore all rules", I urge for a reasonable, calm rule interpretation based on fact (not being burdened by prejudice and accusations like "Utterly shameful."). As I showed, the article is very well inside the defined "notability criteria" with broad, reliable secondary reception. The voiced "stomach feelings" brought up here by some, are no substantial counter arguments against the sources available, addressing the raised points for keeping the article. Shaddim (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you keep saying that, by your interpretation, it meets the GNG; however, virtually no experienced editors agree with that assertion. The sourcing is just way too weak. Appealing to "the decline of Wikipedia" or "well its got a really strong fanbase" doesn't play any role in these discussions either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Phoronix reference is about Blood Frontier. Gamestar.hu is not a reliable source. Chip.de is a promotional download area. Derstandard.at an unknown website that has a passing mention that shows no notability and your PC Gamer link goes to the same Chip.de article! Your "Clearly not trivial mention" is trying to play a WP:GAME. I'm not too sure about the byzantine policies and procedures that is mentioned but if you have been involved with the ideology of Wikipedia, you will note that the core of how things work is through consensus. Let me help you with letting this run it's course... Please don't feel that you WP:OWN this article. - Pmedema (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your extensive (/s) research at this topic and for this discussion.... you even failed to find the PC Gamer ref, which is the first source in the topic's page. Or the failing to identify that the Der Standard is one of the major newspaper of Austria, clearly reliable. Your remark about Blood Frontier also misses that Blood frontier is the direct predecessor and RE the direct successor. About Gamestar.hu... what you are talking about? Did you even took one second time to check what you said? "GameStar (DE, HU, CZ, IT, CN)" is mentioned as reliable, also the HU version. And I unlikely "own" the article, as I was before this misguided deletion request not a major author of the article. So, wrong on all fronts. Can we please stay on topic? PS: about Byzantine, see here Shaddim (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to work on your civility. You are getting way out of line with these personal attacks. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only one, I get here attacked with unbased accusations of all kind, I didn't started this, I jsut defend. :( Shaddim (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shaddim, to be fair, you are the one who linked to the wrong article above when trying to link to the PC Gamer article, in your comments above. That's what he was referring to. (It confused me at one point as well.) Regardless, the PC Gamer article is again, much more of a "short listicle entry" than "significant coverage". Not a strong example. Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this was obviously a minor mistake from my side and no reason for a blown up complaint or a proper reason for a dismissal of the source. The other complain aspects were similarly weak researched counter arguments... *sigh*. While I agree many of that sources are not strong examples (they are short), I argue, many of them satisfy the notability criteria alone as many of them are not "a trivial mention" but own articles for this topic alone. And, let alone the broadness of reliable source coverage we have for this topic (continous international reception for years), which constitutes notability. Shaddim (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Eclipse&oldid=1089521750"