Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UltraRogue
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 delete, but open to reposting if reliable sources that have been accepted by the community in a discussion emerge. To quote a participant: "I'll make a list when I have time.", when said list appears and is accepted, we can move forward. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] UltraRogue
Subject fails Wikipedia's notability requirements, lacking independent, verifiable sources. After personally spending an hour searching for potential source candidates (querying UltraRogue, urogue, and even Herb Chong), I managed to turn up one blog post, the Roguelike Restoration write-up, and a mix of Usenet posts, none of which qualify as reliable, third-party materials. There's no doubt the game in question exists, but it has not generated sufficient interest to qualify as notable for Wikipedia's purposes. I would have suggested merging suitable content into Rogue (computer game), but that route fails to address the underlying issue: insufficient documentation about the subject. D. Brodale (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The nom has made it pretty clear that this game is not the subject of any reliable third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —D. Brodale (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to Roguelike to discourage recreation Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I find multiple independent sources (including a sourceforge project) discussing urogue with simple google searches, certainly more than "one blog post", so I don't know why your searches aren't turning them up. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree about whether this is notable enough. My opinion is that since it is the progenitor of several modern games, including Hack, NetHack, and others, it's notable enough for its own article. Nandesuka (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to provide a list of independent sources that contribute to verifiability of the game in question, especially those that support any claim to notability. I certainly couldn't find any, and I made a good faith effort. I'm unaware of any direct connection to NetHack, in particular through that game's progenitor, Hack, and would welcome a reliable source for that suggestion. My guess is that the SourceForge project mentioned above is that of the Roguelike Restoration Project, which I feel does not constitute sufficient evidence. I also question the relevance of Abyss (the link provided above) to the discussion here, especially given the nature of the linked content. D. Brodale (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll make a list when I have time. Speaking of allusions, what's wrong with the "nature" of the Abyss link? It describes itself as a game "based upon UltraRogue", published by a commercial enterprise but given away for free. Is there something inappropriate about that? It's hard for me to imagine a more relevant statement than that of a software publisher saying "I based this program on this earlier one, here." Regarding the relationships, Hack is universally acknowledged to be directly inspired by rogue (just google for "roguelike family tree"). Whether it was completely independent of or intertwined with u/a/srogue is something for others to comment on. Nandesuka (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding Hack, there is a difference between inspiration from Rogue (which I am not contesting) and from UltraRogue, which is the subject of this AfD. I see no reason to conflate the two different games within this discussion. As for Abyss, I'm not sure what to make of a first-person statement that it is based on UltraRogue with respect to the original nomination. I don't see how it addresses my original concerns with the article in question on the grounds mentioned above. It does not contribute to notability of UltraRogue, and it appears as though you are attempting to state a claim to notability for Abyss that would inherit to UltraRogue above. You're correct that there is a one-sentence statement that Abyss is "based" on UltraRogue, but I would question what that means, rather than read undue significance into it. Though, by all means, I would welcome that list of sources meeting the needs of the nomination that I could not locate. D. Brodale (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your "first person statement" analysis. The author of a work says "This work is based on UltraRogue." "First person" implies that I'm saying it was based on UltraRogue, which I'm not; rather, a third party source -- in this case, the creator of the game -- is saying it. I think this is relevant because it goes directly to the notability and verifiability of UltraRogue; if nothing else, we have a primary source for the sentence "UltraRogue is the inspiration for the game Abyss" (a sentence which is not yet in the article). I don't think arguing the notability of Abyss is interesting here, because the article isn't really about it. Rather, it goes to the question of whether UltraRogue itself is notable. On a casual web search, I find sources listing games (multiple games) based on UltraRogue, and its the fact that the game inspired successors and siblings that is directly relevant to its notability. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to you. The simple statement on the page in question is first person, in that the relation between UltraRogue and Abyss is not stated by a disinterested third-party. I still feel uncomfortable reading much into a single line without further exposition, regardless. The claim is opaque to verification. And I don't grasp how it establishes notability for UltraRogue at all. I'm unwilling to concede to hand-waving about multiple games being significantly influenced by UltraRogue in the absence of reliable sources that contribute to verifiable claims. D. Brodale (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- So if Hemingway says in the introduction to The Old Man and the Sea that it is based on a work by Edgar Allen Poe, you would say that we couldn't use that statement until a third party parrotted it? (He doesn't say that, and this obviously ain't Hemingway we're talking about here :-) I don't know where you're getting this guideline from, because I don't see it in any of our guidelines. The claim is self-verifying because the relevant part is the fact of the claim. Maybe it's not based on UltraRogue. Maybe it's really based on Doom. But the author claims it is based on UltraRogue, and that is relevant to establishing UltraRogue's notability. Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's clear that I accept that the author of Abyss states that it is based on UltraRogue per my earlier comments. How again does this establish notability for UltraRogue per Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practice? It seems a terribly weak argument — if an argument at all — to say that UltraRogue is notable because it inspired Abyss, especially given that the only one who has seen fit to comment on this is the author of the latter. D. Brodale (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, the Abyss author quote would be a secondary source I'd think. Primary for Abyss, but that's not the topic of discussion eh? Hobit (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe that's the core concern, as it remains unclear how the single statement contributes to verification of any significant claim about UltraRogue itself, or from my interpretation of guidelines, the notability of same. I should have steered clear of the term "first person" in my initial response, making it clear that my concern is that too much weight is being placed on the line relative to the original nomination for deletion. D. Brodale (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- In this case, the Abyss author quote would be a secondary source I'd think. Primary for Abyss, but that's not the topic of discussion eh? Hobit (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's clear that I accept that the author of Abyss states that it is based on UltraRogue per my earlier comments. How again does this establish notability for UltraRogue per Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and practice? It seems a terribly weak argument — if an argument at all — to say that UltraRogue is notable because it inspired Abyss, especially given that the only one who has seen fit to comment on this is the author of the latter. D. Brodale (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- So if Hemingway says in the introduction to The Old Man and the Sea that it is based on a work by Edgar Allen Poe, you would say that we couldn't use that statement until a third party parrotted it? (He doesn't say that, and this obviously ain't Hemingway we're talking about here :-) I don't know where you're getting this guideline from, because I don't see it in any of our guidelines. The claim is self-verifying because the relevant part is the fact of the claim. Maybe it's not based on UltraRogue. Maybe it's really based on Doom. But the author claims it is based on UltraRogue, and that is relevant to establishing UltraRogue's notability. Nandesuka (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to you. The simple statement on the page in question is first person, in that the relation between UltraRogue and Abyss is not stated by a disinterested third-party. I still feel uncomfortable reading much into a single line without further exposition, regardless. The claim is opaque to verification. And I don't grasp how it establishes notability for UltraRogue at all. I'm unwilling to concede to hand-waving about multiple games being significantly influenced by UltraRogue in the absence of reliable sources that contribute to verifiable claims. D. Brodale (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused by your "first person statement" analysis. The author of a work says "This work is based on UltraRogue." "First person" implies that I'm saying it was based on UltraRogue, which I'm not; rather, a third party source -- in this case, the creator of the game -- is saying it. I think this is relevant because it goes directly to the notability and verifiability of UltraRogue; if nothing else, we have a primary source for the sentence "UltraRogue is the inspiration for the game Abyss" (a sentence which is not yet in the article). I don't think arguing the notability of Abyss is interesting here, because the article isn't really about it. Rather, it goes to the question of whether UltraRogue itself is notable. On a casual web search, I find sources listing games (multiple games) based on UltraRogue, and its the fact that the game inspired successors and siblings that is directly relevant to its notability. Hope that helps. Nandesuka (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding Hack, there is a difference between inspiration from Rogue (which I am not contesting) and from UltraRogue, which is the subject of this AfD. I see no reason to conflate the two different games within this discussion. As for Abyss, I'm not sure what to make of a first-person statement that it is based on UltraRogue with respect to the original nomination. I don't see how it addresses my original concerns with the article in question on the grounds mentioned above. It does not contribute to notability of UltraRogue, and it appears as though you are attempting to state a claim to notability for Abyss that would inherit to UltraRogue above. You're correct that there is a one-sentence statement that Abyss is "based" on UltraRogue, but I would question what that means, rather than read undue significance into it. Though, by all means, I would welcome that list of sources meeting the needs of the nomination that I could not locate. D. Brodale (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Balrog roguelike information site describes UltraRogue as "extremely advanced for its time," and goes on to detail some of the specifics behind that, as well as detailing author, copyright, and platform information. Site seems down at the moment, I used an archive.org link. Nandesuka (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, BALROG hasn't been "live" for quite some time. I have to ask, how does the page in question fulfill the reliability guideline with respect to notability? It appears that the self-published information is gleaned from the author's personal efforts to render the game playable, per the content on the page. D. Brodale (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Writers, authors, software developers, and other creators of content, unlike Wikipedia editors, are allowed to engage in original research. We're clearly not going to find a Washington Post article on urogue, but I think that it's pretty clear that there is a pattern of software history that is apparent here, based merely on the statements of third parties. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about BALROG, but it is certainly referred to by many other sources online. Nandesuka (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I never attempted to apply WP:OR to BALROG, so please don't mischaracterize my concern. I questioned whether this self-published material constitutes reliable support. I don't see how it does. Reference to The Washington Post is disingenuous at best. Please don't exaggerate the requirements of the original nomination. There are many game-related sources that are consensually accepted as reliable sources. I don't believe BALROG falls in line with accepted practice on Wikipedia with respect to establishing the notability of games. D. Brodale (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Writers, authors, software developers, and other creators of content, unlike Wikipedia editors, are allowed to engage in original research. We're clearly not going to find a Washington Post article on urogue, but I think that it's pretty clear that there is a pattern of software history that is apparent here, based merely on the statements of third parties. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about BALROG, but it is certainly referred to by many other sources online. Nandesuka (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, BALROG hasn't been "live" for quite some time. I have to ask, how does the page in question fulfill the reliability guideline with respect to notability? It appears that the self-published information is gleaned from the author's personal efforts to render the game playable, per the content on the page. D. Brodale (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- iRogue, a port of Rogue for the Palm Pilot, notes in its source code that various data structures and data tables are "taken entirely from urogue". [1]. It is also described (or advertised) as being derived from rogue and urogue [2] Nandesuka (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but reading select comments directly from source code about, of all things, data structures strains credibility with regards to the original nomination. Is this not original research? D. Brodale (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Er, no? On the home page for iRogue, the author states "[iRogue] is derived from two versions of rogue (rogue 5.3-clone and urogue)." It is impossible to reasonably characterize that as original research. Nandesuka (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I was referring to the first of two links supplied above, and I think that's a clear case of original research on your part. With respect to the second link, which I overlooked, this is again questionable support for the claim of notability on the part of UltraRogue. See the discussion of Abyss above. How does this satisfy reliability as a verifiable source per WP:N? Please don't misconstrue my remarks, and I apologize for not noticing the secondary link. D. Brodale (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- With respect -- and this is a tangent, since you have acknowledged the point -- I don't think looking at the source code is original research when the source code contains the claim in English. Original research would be if I opined "The source code from iRogue is clearly derived from that of urogue. Look, these struct elements here are almost the same!" When the source code has the comment "This was taken entirely from urogue", that's a different kettle of fish. As to how this is relevant, I think the existence of a cluster of multiple games, all explicitly claiming some derivation from UltraRogue, is prima faciae relevant. Reasonable people can, of course, reach different conclusions. Nandesuka (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The argument fronted above (as I read it) is in part that UltraRogue is notable because of its name being present within source code to another game (the first link). That's a primary source (the source code) which fails to satisfy reliability guidelines with respect to WP:N in bypassing the need for a reliable, third-party support. Your example of original research is baffling, as it seems you did claim that iRogue is derived from UltraRogue in the stated manner. Simply substitute "comments" for "struct elements" (both constitute programming code). Did I miss something? How can we verify that those comments don't represent past work and simply weren't removed? We, as editors, cannot. But before I derail this AfD... I don't see "a cluster of multiple games", but that is neither here nor there, as I also do not see reliable sources that establish UltraRogue's notability, which is the overriding concern of the nomination. For the record, the examples we've discussed at length were uncovered in my earlier search to establish UltraRogue as notable, but then, as now, I still fail to see how they could possibly satisfy relevant policy. D. Brodale (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- With respect -- and this is a tangent, since you have acknowledged the point -- I don't think looking at the source code is original research when the source code contains the claim in English. Original research would be if I opined "The source code from iRogue is clearly derived from that of urogue. Look, these struct elements here are almost the same!" When the source code has the comment "This was taken entirely from urogue", that's a different kettle of fish. As to how this is relevant, I think the existence of a cluster of multiple games, all explicitly claiming some derivation from UltraRogue, is prima faciae relevant. Reasonable people can, of course, reach different conclusions. Nandesuka (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to the first of two links supplied above, and I think that's a clear case of original research on your part. With respect to the second link, which I overlooked, this is again questionable support for the claim of notability on the part of UltraRogue. See the discussion of Abyss above. How does this satisfy reliability as a verifiable source per WP:N? Please don't misconstrue my remarks, and I apologize for not noticing the secondary link. D. Brodale (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Er, no? On the home page for iRogue, the author states "[iRogue] is derived from two versions of rogue (rogue 5.3-clone and urogue)." It is impossible to reasonably characterize that as original research. Nandesuka (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do want to add, in light of the illuminating discussion above, that the terse remarks of connection present on both the Abyss and iRogue pages fail to satisfy the request for verfiable information about UltraRogue itself. I take responsibility for letting this original request slip in the avalanche of discussion concerning the notability of the subject. BALROG, mentioned above, does not strike me as a reliable source for such, as noted elsewhere. D. Brodale (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but reading select comments directly from source code about, of all things, data structures strains credibility with regards to the original nomination. Is this not original research? D. Brodale (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll make a list when I have time. Speaking of allusions, what's wrong with the "nature" of the Abyss link? It describes itself as a game "based upon UltraRogue", published by a commercial enterprise but given away for free. Is there something inappropriate about that? It's hard for me to imagine a more relevant statement than that of a software publisher saying "I based this program on this earlier one, here." Regarding the relationships, Hack is universally acknowledged to be directly inspired by rogue (just google for "roguelike family tree"). Whether it was completely independent of or intertwined with u/a/srogue is something for others to comment on. Nandesuka (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to provide a list of independent sources that contribute to verifiability of the game in question, especially those that support any claim to notability. I certainly couldn't find any, and I made a good faith effort. I'm unaware of any direct connection to NetHack, in particular through that game's progenitor, Hack, and would welcome a reliable source for that suggestion. My guess is that the SourceForge project mentioned above is that of the Roguelike Restoration Project, which I feel does not constitute sufficient evidence. I also question the relevance of Abyss (the link provided above) to the discussion here, especially given the nature of the linked content. D. Brodale (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm a big nethack player, and I'd never heard of it so I was going to stay out. But I'd call comments by iRogue and Abyss authors secondary sources. The reliable is tricky here, but verifiable isn't. That said, all this needs to be nicely in the article. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have to ask: what do the iRogue and Abyss one-liners verify about UltraRogue other than it exists? I don't see how either constitute "significant coverage" per WP:N. I honestly feel like I'm missing something here, but I cannot locate any such coverage with respect to either game. D. Brodale (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've added the references to the article. Would have been nice for people to have had this discussion on the article's talk page, rather than in an AfD. But what can you do. Nandesuka (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would still note that none of the references constitute significant coverage (apart from a cobbled together collection of Usenet posts) by reliable sources, insofar as notability is concerned. I might also add that there's nothing wrong with discussing the article in the context of an AfD, which seemed a more prudent course to take in gaining wider exposure for an article unilaterally undeleted after nearly a year's absence from article space. Your own remark was to "take this to AfD." Sue me for seeking the opinion of those who might not have noticed its reemergence. D. Brodale (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've nominated more than my share of articles for deletion, and no article is immune from nomination. I'll note, however, that the article as it exists today -- with a minimum of effort, I might add -- is substantially better than the one you nominated. For that matter, it's at this point much better referenced, and contains more detail, than the article on Hack (video game). And I don't think we should be deleting the Hack article, either. Nandesuka (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The subject of this AfD is UltraRogue, not Hack or any other Wikipedia article, unless I misunderstand the nature of this discussion. Let's stay focused. Participants could spend all day pointing hither and yon at other articles. I strongly question what you consider "much better" referencing; I see the addition of a number of links, but little indication of critical filtering. To wit: none of the supplied "references" speak of the article's subject in an extended fashion, excepting BALROG and the Usenet spoiler collection discussed earlier. In another case, there's reference to an unannotated, unattributed table from a pseudonymous site. Yes, this may be better than no citation at all, but (still) where are reliable sources that devote significant coverage to satisfy notability? Despite these additions, which I encourage others to assess rather than count, there's no indication of whether or how UltraRogue is notable. This isn't personal. I simply don't see evidence of notability. D. Brodale (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've nominated more than my share of articles for deletion, and no article is immune from nomination. I'll note, however, that the article as it exists today -- with a minimum of effort, I might add -- is substantially better than the one you nominated. For that matter, it's at this point much better referenced, and contains more detail, than the article on Hack (video game). And I don't think we should be deleting the Hack article, either. Nandesuka (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the author of Moby Dick said in the forward to the book that it was based primarily on a book called My Fair Lady then that forward would act as a reliable secondary source when explaining the notability of My Fair Lady. Melvile is not a primary source for My Fair Lady. I'm claiming the same thing here. If two large/important projects (and I'm not 100% certain on that, though I have heard of both of them) claim that they were derived from the same base project, that contributes to the notability of the base and if the claim is clearly attributable, it is a reliable secondary source just as Melvile's forward would be. Or so goes my thinking. Hobit (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't quite follow the reasoning, but neither iLarn nor Abyss state the degree of relation to UltraRogue, "based" (the only desciptor used in either case) could mean in whole, part, or combination, and it certainly is not clear in either case. I don't think it's self-evident that the basis is primary (as given in your analysis), nor do I think that whatever significance one might assign to these two games automatically attaches to thing or things that might have influenced them. Certainly, the lone statement of each that "X is based on Y" is far from significant coverage about Y, isn't it? D. Brodale (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would still note that none of the references constitute significant coverage (apart from a cobbled together collection of Usenet posts) by reliable sources, insofar as notability is concerned. I might also add that there's nothing wrong with discussing the article in the context of an AfD, which seemed a more prudent course to take in gaining wider exposure for an article unilaterally undeleted after nearly a year's absence from article space. Your own remark was to "take this to AfD." Sue me for seeking the opinion of those who might not have noticed its reemergence. D. Brodale (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails notability guidelines. I keep reading above about the possibility of other mentions, but the article contains none. I'd suspect if reliable, verifiable information was actually available it would have been added to the article by now. Gromlakh (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: The deletion argument is about "reliable sources." That's a dreadful thing. There is wide precedent for history of videogames articles, and many of those will not yield a great deal of current chatter. Therefore, trying to find out if this is a heavily discussed game today is ... weird. The down side to any "history of videogames" article is that the books that cite the developments either have not been written or are pretty rare. Next, there are many exceptionally trivial articles, many empty articles, cluttering up Wikipedia (hit "random"), but this isn't one of them. I'm certainly no fan of the genre of videogame articles, but the genre is "in" (i.e. either we go through all of them and leave ourselves with nothing but Pong and Frogger, or we do not reject them for having generic limitations), and this is a respectable and valid member of the species. Geogre (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not a "history of video games" article. The subject under discussion is UltraRogue, a single computer game that at least one individual/group claims to actively develop. I don't follow your logic, could you clarify? D. Brodale (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails notability guidelines. It was notabable in its day (20 years ago) but is fairly obscure now. As far as I know there aren't specific pages for Super Rogue or Advanced Rogue either (the later being fairly widespread, perhaps moreso than the original Rogue). It is hard for a topic which predates the modern web-based internet yet existed (essentially) solely on the pre-web internet to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. In any event Wikipedia is not the source of all knowledge on the internet or the replacement for a good google search. The primary source can be found easy enough. BTW, on quick examination Abyss is directly based on the source code and irogue borrowed a few pieces here and there to expand the rogue clone port it was based on. In the end I say delete the article, I do not care to play rules lawyer as some are wont to. It might be worth a footnote on the rogue page. -- yendor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archmage yendor (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - No evidence of significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. With regards to Archmage yendor's comment; if it can be shown that this game was notable 20 years ago then that is enough. There is no expiry date on notability - I've based many video game articles on magazine reviews from that long ago. Marasmusine (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2008 (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.
