Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocket jumping

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. --- RockMFR 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocket jumping

Rocket jumping (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not one citation for this term, which might be made up, and no assertion of notability. The article appears to be a synthesis of gameplay elements from various games to make its point. It was nominated for deletion before, and is no more notable now than it was then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as Neologism, I can't find any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete [1] example of the term being used in Custom PC magazine therefore the article is verifiable and not original research. It was also in common enough use when Quake 3 arena was released to become the title of a musical piece on the game soundtrack. On second thoughts it probably should be in Wiktionary. --Neon white (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok well that's good to know. The term appears to be a neologism still and seems to be limited to a dictionary definition type entry fit for wiktionary. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to WT and delete: Not for Wikipedia, so trim down (way down) and send to -tionary. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Well written and convincing, but it is OR, Cruft and NN. A whole article on "Let's see what happens when I fire a rocket at my feet" isn't constructive. Spawn Man (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Oh, for... this is an extremely prevalent concept known to literally millions, or more likely tens of millions, of people. It's a basic part of an entire genre. There's no way destruction of its article would be beneficial.
  I'd also like to ask the nominator to consider something, not as an insult but as help with his editing^*. As Neon White demonstrated, he jumped to multiple wrong conclusions in evaluating this article - mistakes that seem like they would've been wholly avoidable with some more research, consulting people who are more knowledgeable in the field, and/or a larger assumption of good faith regarding the editors of the article. We're very much not in a rush, so there's no real reason for these things to happen. Since they have, I advise backing off somewhat and being more cautious. --Kizor (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a very simple question to be answered in this AFD, and that is, "does this article have notability?" Note I said "Simple", not "easy". Simple answers are often difficult to follow through on. If this article fails this simple test, it should be deleted. And I am not rushing, the article has 5 days to prove itself just like any other. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge, I am a gamer, I found this information too game specific. I think we should merge all the video game movements articles into 1 article, let's say Movements in video games. In that case, we can potentially mention game physics and various different "jumping" implementations. Even so, the prospect of finding citations is still low. (may be game programming documentations?) --Voidvector (talk) 08:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki Cut and send to wiktionary. --DBishop¹⁹⁸⁴ 14:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge I prefer to keep it in one piece, but merging it with the other articles sounds like a great idea. 1yodsyo1 15:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs)

^*: This statement may sound impossibile. I hasten to add that I've also complimented a woman's breasts and not been taken as having an ulterior motive, and gotten hammered out of altruism. Doing the impossible is kind of fun.

• Keep this is quite a famous component of the first person shooter genre. It's not true that the term has no citations; the article cites [2] which quotes John Romero (father of the genre!) using it. The article is certainly not a dictionary definition, so transwikiing to wiktionary doesn't make sense. There is plenty of cruft in here, though, which should be cleaned up. — brighterorange (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I added three references in newspapers that I found with LexisNexis, to help establish notability. It believe it would be easy to find citations for some of the factual material, especially in printed strategy guides for the games in question. — brighterorange (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment -But isn't this till a neologism, and should be at least moved to Wiktionary? What are peoples thoughts on this? Judgesurreal777 03:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand your point. The term is 10 years old at a minimum, so that is at the far reaches of what one could consider a neologism in 2007. But even so, there is no prohibition on having articles about things with neologistic names. If you look at the neologism article, for instance, you'll find loads of examples of things that we say are neologisms with bluelinks to perfectly fine articles about them. The rule is WP:NOT a dictionary, and for that, we are simply not supposed to have articles that are dictionary definitions. This is clearly far more than a dictionary definition, because it discusses the history, its application in several different games, its appearance in movies, etc. — brighterorange (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. G4 TechTV just did a segment all about rocket jumping, I don't see how this wouldn't be notable. No need to discriminate just because its gaming-related. RFerreira 07:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you read the nomination and ensuing discussion, you will find that the issues are these; is this a neologism fit for wiktionary, and if that is true, is there anything encyclopedic remaining? Judgesurreal777 08:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be great if you could add the TechTV segment as a reference. Is it online? Even if not, it would be a useful improvement to the article. — brighterorange (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's marginally notable, but there's really not much more to say about it than what it is, so an encyclopedia entry is not warranted. Xihr 09:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying what something is is not the same as defining a word (and thus is in the scope of an encyclopedia article). Even still, the article does discuss the history, its varied appearance in several games, and outside of gaming. — brighterorange (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I added a lot more references to this article, to print sources, television, and the web. (Sorry that I am coming late to the discussion.) If you commented based on the article with only 2 references, please take another look... — brighterorange (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep due to reliable references, with thanks to brightorange for taking the time to find and source them. One thing I'd suggest is that merging all the FPS-specific moves like this into a single article may be a way forward, however that's a later discussion, for now this should be held onto.Someone another 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep How old does something have to be before it does not become a "neologism"? Can I go and nominate iPod because it's only X years old? Silly nomination. Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, else Condense (maybe into a stub?) - it's a bit too detailed in parts. Fin©™ 17:45, 5 December 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.