Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quake done Quick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, though cleanup would not go amiss. Moreschi Talk 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quake done Quick

Fails WP:N: does not have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. It only has two fan sources (Slashdot, which people themselves write the stories; and the Speedrun demo archive, another fan site). No magazine reviews, major gaming site coverage to speak of (couldn't find anything with a quick Google search). hbdragon88 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. hbdragon88 06:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seminal piece of speedrunning/machinima. I'm not sure if this link works, but its on Google Books [1], and is covered by online articles such as this one on Speedrunning at Der Spiegel. These have definitely been covered by magazines, as when I first watched them, it must have been off some cover disk as I had not yet got a steady online connection then. - hahnchen 08:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:NOTABILITY. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other." I have not found anything that fulfills this. --Teggles 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Neutral: Voters have shown this has a fair bit of a notability, and it's clear that deletion would not be the best thing. However, I still have problems with the notability, it seems almost everything to discuss it is a low-popularity magazine or Internet website. --Teggles 09:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Reading hahnchen's vote, my statement might be partially incorrect, but I still would not consider what he has given as a pass of WP:NOTABILITY. --Teggles 11:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • There's a multitude of articles around that don't have anything like this kind of media coverage, and yet they're allowed to exist. Some of the Pokémon articles come to mind. So we've got a book that dedicates 4 pages to this speedrun, multiple scholarly references, and articles by rather large news companies and some of the bigger game news websites, but yet it's still considered to be not notable? There is no other speedrun that has been given so much attention, and I think that counts for something. —msikma (user, talk) 09:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Don't pull a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on me. Not to mention I am trying to get most of the Pokémon articles merged/deleted. One of the scholarly references simply lists Quake Done Quick in a list of links, and the other can't be viewed, so it is impossible to decide if it's focused. --Teggles 19:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
          • You can view the book chapter on-line here. It devotes quite a lot of time to QdQ. — brighterorange (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, has been the subject of multiple nontrivial media coverage, see google news archive results and google books result (one of three) and multiple google scholar results. You can see a draft of one of the papers here, it spends about four pages talking about the QDQ team as some of the first speedrunners. The article needs a rewrite to make their importance clear, since it mostly focuses on simple statistics. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Popularity is not notability; most of those "sources" merely mention QDQ, rather than cover it, if I'm not mistaken. Find something major. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • four pages in a published peer reviewed paper is a mere mention? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, one. That being said, that source probably merits it for a merge into Electronic sports or Speedruns itself. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Among those results, we find one book that talks about it for four pages and includes two images, and one scholarly article that cites Quake Done Quick as a reference (which should give it at least some credit). These two results are strong, because they are published and peer-reviewed. The other results are also strong, although they only mention Quake Done Quick. However, just mentioning it (instead of mentioning any other machinima movie or speedrun) means that it is notable in some way. There are also about 28300 results on Google, mainly sites that have written articles about it or have mirrored the video. The fact that it's mirrored so often means that people have taken the content and uploaded it themselves, independently of the authors of the movie. Some of the results via Google are also very high-ranked, as the Wikipedia page for Quake Done Quick does not appear until the second page. All in all, I'd say that the web too would agree that this isn't just an ordinary temporary Internet phenomenon. It has reached some point of significance. —msikma (user, talk) 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Slashdot may have people themselves right the stories, but there's still an editorial selection process involved in what articles do appear. Perhaps a merge to speedrun might be appropriate (thoug that article is being rewritten, so it'd be best to talk about it first). And I'm not entirely sure, but I believe demos of this may have been included on PC Gamer Demo discs? Or Boot/Maximum PC? That could establish some notability too. FrozenPurpleCube 16:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Very trivial article, and not very encyclopedic. People do speedruns for just about any video game: that certainly doesn't mean they need articles here on Wikipedia. While somewhat interesting, it's not a decent article for this Wikipedia. Try a video game wiki of some sort. RobJ1981 18:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you believe that it should be rewritten to be more decent (in which case I would simply disagree with deletion; time will improve articles), or that it's unencyclopedic and should not be included? With the caliber of the articles and books mentioning this run, I would say that it's quite a far stretch to just shrug this article off as "yet an other unnecessary fan-made article". I won't hide the fact that I'm a fan of speedrunning, but I think that this article is still a good idea, as it's a specific example of speedrunning that's been featured enough to be at least of adequate notability, as that alone is quite rare for what is essentially (partially) an Internet phenomenon. —msikma (user, talk) 19:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep probably the most famous speedrun out there. Sources are adequate (since when is Slashdot a "fan site"?), especially considering the additional ones found by hanchen and night gyr. — brighterorange (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Fancruft. --Oscarthecat 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have written this article after initially including it in speedrun. The reason for the split was the same for this particular run being mentioned in the speedrun article at some point: it's a very notable example that has been covered extensively (for a speedrun). One can also find discussion on this subject in various books, as shown by Night Gyr, as well as scholarly articles. There are also many passing references in various works (such as magazines), which too should account for at least some notability. I even still have a PC Gamer CD from 1997 which contains the run. Although the article is currently not very well written (it's been quite some time since I extensively edited it), I think that all it needs is a bit of work to bring it up to a good standard. There's no real reason for deletion here, I believe, because WP:N is not being violated. —msikma (user, talk) 19:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd be quite surprised if there's never been a page or two spread on QdQ in some gaming magazines, in fact; did the PC Gamer issue have some coverage or was it "just" on the cover CD? — brighterorange (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, certainly, the magazine did dedicate a full page to it. I remember that there was something along the lines of an interview too, although I don't remember with whom. It's unfortunate that it was so long ago, since game magazines usually don't put their really old content online. It's for this reason that there are relatively few sources of coverage from such magazines online right now. —msikma (user, talk) 10:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • A print magazine is certainly a reliable source though, even if it is not as useful for on-line readers of Wikipedia. — brighterorange (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Oh yes, it's much more difficult to get a print resource published than an online resource. It's undergone more rigorous editing and review. The book source that was recently added to the article is excellent. I also feel that even though this article might get deleted (even though I strongly disagree with that at this point), it can be recreated later in case we do find some of these sources, which would certainly end the notability debate once and for all. They're out there, as this speedrun has certainly had enough limelight (back in its day, at least). —msikma (user, talk) 21:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Speedrun article (section 5.1) has all the relevant bits of this article sans the obvious COI element. This article is redundant and, on its own, does not rise to the level of deserving an article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Wait, what? COI element? There's no such thing. I made this article because I felt that it was notable enough for inclusion. I didn't create the Quake Done Quick runs, and don't have any affiliation with the group. Note that WP:COI states: "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest." - I'm certainly an expert on the subject of speedrunning, I would say, and it's for this reason that I felt I could contribute to this particular article. It does not imply that I'm only here to bolster that which I'm a fan of, and I find it a bit alarming that you would say I am. —msikma (user, talk) 09:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Lack of reliable sources. Download websites, google hits, and primary source material are NOT replacements for credible secondary sources! Wickethewok 04:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Someone has dedicated four pages of his book to this speedrun, and there are multiple scholarly references to it. Do you believe that these aren't secondary sources? They have nothing to do with the original authors of the speedrun. —msikma (user, talk) 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • ...scholarly references to Quake Done Quick? That's going to need a link. --Teggles 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
        • See the links posted above, among them this one. —msikma (user, talk) 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've seen this mentioned over and over again when discussing speedrunning and Quake movies in general, especially when these first came out (yep, Slashdot at least, as mentioned in the article). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It may be popular in its own community, but does it mean it is noticed by other gamers? I checked the search engine, and can't a single gaming magazine or other media mentioning it. Most sources are blog like in nature. Hence it fails WP:N.--Kylohk 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Arbitrary decisions as to what people are interested in and what they are not are too arrogant to be made, even on Wikipedia. Just because there are no academic essays on QDQ doesn't mean it's not notable. Reliable sources have already been mentioned. Plus, games magazines (paper) would have to be checked and evaluated for coverage. I recall a few polish magazine issues covering speedrunning, with the explicit mention of QDQ. Mikael GRizzly 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the links posted above, here are some more for sources that cover the Quake done Quick series:
  • — TKD::Talk 00:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 00:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If it deserves mention it should be on the main Quake article in the form of a line or paragraph, a full article is nothing more than cruft. --凶 01:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Would you consider it not notable enough to have its own article even after seeing the links provided by hahnch and TKD? —msikma (user, talk) 11:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per TKD's references. There seem to be reliable notability-establishing sources to be found in the Escapist and possibly some of the others. We don't need to make any value judgements here. But in case anyone wants to, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and as such can include articles appropriate for a specific-subject encyclopedia. This would be fine for a video game encyclopedia, without becoming cruft, as a notable example of speed runs. Ichibani 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete We do not need yet another article about a non notable trick that a few people can do in video games. At least, that's what I gather the article is about (rewrite if it stays, for the love of god). As far as I can see, this article is not notable. G1ggy! 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The first part of the first sentence in the article states clearly "Quake done Quick is a series of machinima and speedrun movies [...]". This article is not about "a trick that some people can do", and it's the only article of its kind (about a speedrun production) on the entire wiki as far as I'm aware. I don't see where you seem to have gotten that impression. You should give articles about a subject that you don't know anything about a chance, and not just suggest that they should be deleted because you don't really know what it seems to be. (I get the impression that people are less willing to do the necessary research to determine whether an article should stay or not when it concerns a niche subject, although this should not matter at all, because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.) —msikma (user, talk) 12:19, 25 May 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.