Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameGuard

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 a stub. i withdrawn my afd since its better now The Uber Ninja 03:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GameGuard

GameGuard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

this article mostly contains orignal research about how the anti-hack software works. it cannot be sourced, because the offical website doesn't release these info. this article is also poorly written. IMO this article needs to go. The Uber Ninja 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It doesn't matter if the company making the product releases the information or not. What matters is that the source being used is reliable. As it stands, there may be elements of original research, but that is likely correctable. And being badly written is not a deletion criterion. But lack of reliable sources is. I'm not sure at this point whether reliable sources can be found. -- Whpq 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite or Delete The issue of reliable third party sources aside this appears to read mostly as a how to or at least an indiscriminant collection of information whose primary use is in reverse engineering or defeating this software. Wikipedia is not the appropriate for this information. I admit there is some information contained in the article worthy of a wikipedia article but with most of the article being inappropriate a rewrite from scratch would not be a bad idea. I would delete the sections that need to be deleted but it would either not stick or be unappreciated by well intentioned editors who care about this article who could do a better job than I.--Nick Y. 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I went a head and rewrote it for some silly reason. Still needs citations.--Nick Y. 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• rewrite starting with a stub. Almost nothing there is worth keeping, but the subject is probably notable enough to warrant an article. — brighterorange (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. GameGuard is a pretty widely used piece of software -- well-established games like Lineage II, GunBound and MapleStory use it. Sure, the article needs a rewrite, but that's a kind of an unrelated issue. -- Captain Disdain 22:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and just to add to that a little -- we do have articles on other, similar applications, such as PunkBuster and Valve Anti-Cheat. The problem isn't that the topic isn't valid, it's just not a very good article right now. -- Captain Disdain 22:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Inclusion is not an indicator of notability The Uber Ninja 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well if we were to remove all information, then we will only have 1 sentence and there's no point keeping it The Uber Ninja 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

GameGuard (sometimes abbreviated as GG or GameMon) is a rootkit developed by nProtect. It is bundled with many multiplayer online games specifically to reduce or eliminate cheating.

• • That's what we often refer to as a "stub". Simply including the missing information about which games use it would be an improvement, and certainly some information about how it works can be included. It's not that hard to find a basic source for that. -- Captain Disdain 09:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems notable enough, but desperately needs more sources. --Alan Au 05:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep: It's notable and used in many popular games. Agreed with above proposals of rewriting as a stub; disagreed with nominator: deletion is not the answer for WP:OR. --Scottie theNerd 16:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MissFit001 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Used it widely available, notable, commercial games. WP:INN is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Alan Shatte 21:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a stub per Captain Disdain. Jessica Anne Stevens 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep needs more sources. Paul D. Meehan 05:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a stub which would also limit the number of sources required. Brad Guzman 20:14, 5 January 2007 (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.