Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarf Fortress

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, please discuss merge options on article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwarf Fortress

Delete appears to be a non-notable game. The only assertions of notability are uncited references to forums and blogs that praise the game. No actual mentions of mainstream press coverage is given. Making a "splash at the Penny Arcade forums" is hardly a measure of notability, nor is Bill Harris notable - he doesn't even merit a Wikipedia article, so his dubbing it the "Game of the Year" isn't meaningful in this case. The rest of the article is a game guide which Wikipedia is not. Take away the game guide and there is nothing left here. Gwernol 10:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, there's quite a bit of buzz on this, in my case at the Something Awful Forums. The fact that the content of the current article is not the best doesn't mean that this is not a topic worthy of an article. Lankiveil 13:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC).
• Delete doesn't pass WP:SOFTWARE please note that links to blogs and forums aren't usally considered reliable sources. Whispering^(talk/c) 16:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non-notable gamecruft. Danny Lilithborne 18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge as a mention in Roguelike#Roguelike_family_tree As a moderate fan of roguelikes, I do believe that this is a significant (maybe very) milestone in rogue-like evolution (and perhaps in independent games development), and is likely to regarded as a cult classic in years to come. I realize that "significant milestone in roguelike evolution" is less impressive than say even, "significant milestone in interactive fiction in the in the 21st century". But I think that both roguelikes and 21st century IF are signficant minor genres of computer gaming where major figures and titles are hardly ever going to get widespread recognition, so a little leeway should be given. However, the game is still in alpha, so we should not be premature about allowing it its own article. Even if merged, better sources will ultimately be required too i.e. better than forum "buzz". Bwithh 20:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, here's a mainstream non-blog reference source from Eurogamer to be added to a potential merge or whatever Bwithh 19:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• If the game is still in alpha, it's riding the edge of notability already. Still, I hate to delete things outright if I can do something else. Therefore I concur: merge as a mention in Roguelike and redirect. Alba 05:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• As much of a fan of the game as I am, I have to agree that being an alpha with little enough mainstream notability makes it mainly uneligible for its own article. But I also agree that it should be mentioned somewhere--as suggested, perhaps mention/link the game in Roguelike or merge the article into Roguelike completely, whichever makes more sense in general. Ledneh 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merging this article into the Rougelike article make no sense, because Dwarf Fortress isn't a Rougelike. The primary mode of play, Dwarf Fortress mode, consists of an economic simulation which has no relation to Rougelikes beyond the fact that the tileset used uses images from ASCII characters. While there's also an adventure mode, there's nothing notable about it currently due to the fact it's in bare-bones development and was just introduced recently. Dwarf Fortress is in no way a superficially two-dimensional dungeon crawling computer game, it's a actual two-dimensional dugeon building/economic simulation, and as such doesn't merit a metion in Rougelike. --65.185.222.223 21:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) AC2012
• Keep, the presence of a small but active community ([1], [2]) makes this notable enough for me. Plus, the reviews actually in the article itself, which show it's getting external attention. MichelleG 01:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Posts on obscure blogs, fan websites, and discussions on internet forums are not typically considered reliable sources for establishing encyclopedic notability on wikipedia Bwithh 20:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, I disagree, the fact that people are actually making fansites (not just posting on their personal blogs) about this game, shows that there is an active community, and that it's notable enough for inclusion. Lankiveil 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC).
• Keep (disclosure: I'm the main author (so far) of this version of the article.) I think the reason the amount of "buzz" DF has received is significant here is: when was the last time a "roguelike" actually got any buzz among people who don't play roguelikes? The typical pattern is that every new game in the genre creates a core group of about 25 people who post about it obsessively on rec.games.roguelike.misc, and then that's it, forever. I'd like to see this article be given time to grow, but I promise not go wander around on policy pages shouting about CENSORSHIP and FASCISM if it ends up being deleted. :-) Nandesuka 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I thoroughly disagree with Gwernol's assessment of the article as a "game guide." A minimum of information is given to describe what the game is. This is necessary because the game isn't actually a roguelike, it just looks like one. A game guide, on the other hand, describes how to play or how to win. The difference, at least to me, is clear. No one could use the Wikipedia article to do well at Dwarf Fortress. The goal was to describe it well enough that they would understand what it is. Nandesuka 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, if I have a vote as an unregistered infrequent editor, and otherwise I'll just give my opinion. Dwarf Fortress is a notable example of freeware rougelike development, and while it's technically an alpha, I've seen games that are far less complete that call themselves a beta. While Dward Fortress hasn't garnered a whole lot of news coverage yet, as many have already pointed out it's getting a whole lot of person-to-person "buzz". At the same time, I'm faced with the reality that technically, this article doesn't meet a hard standard for "notability," aside from the Eurogamer article. I just think that we shouldn't apply notability here, even if we can't find media coverage of Dwarf Fortress, when we can consider the community around it. As for the article consisting mainly of a "game guide," virtually every article on video games in Wikipedia descibes how the game is played. How could one write an article on a game without describing its content? --65.185.222.223 03:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC), Anonymous Coward #2012

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.