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. MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Back for the third time. New version, so it dodges G4 CSD, but it still doesn't assert a single evidence of notability. Thoughts? - Vianello (Talk) 10:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is well written and just as valid as most of other opensource project pages. I will personally work on improving it even further when necessary. Here's an review of the game btw http://freeorion.en.softonic.com/ . The project/game is also well referred among Master of Orion and 4X strategy game communities.Peer-LAN (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Unfortunately, a personal assessment of "gamer community" is not a reliable source. A review's more a step in the right direction. - Vianello (Talk) 11:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & salt - still no reliable sources supporting a verifiable and neutral article. MLauba (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & salt. The only references are from its own website and sourceforge. Clearly not notable, and the author has not made any attempt to establish notability following previous AfD discussions. Quantpole (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What's with all the hate? The article is good and the project is well enough known, well better position then most open source game with wikipedia pages. Some aditional links http://www.happypenguin.org/show?Free%20Orion, http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20080511064350671/FreeOrion.html Dauntless (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — Dauntless (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• There is no hate, the article is being weighed against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines the same as any other article brought into an AFD discussion. Someoneanother 22:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- How many times does this need to be deleted? Still advertising for nonnotable software. If other open source games with less reason for being here have Wikipedia articles, as Dauntless suggests, those should be deleted as well. DreamGuy (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. That's just not true. It is a notable open source game, with over fifty thousand google results (which is a lot, e.g. Quiet Exit the debut album of Norwegian singer-songwriter Elvira Nikolaisen that is now on the main page at Did you know... or Robert Lee Howze who's also there have less), with packages distributed on several Linux repositories and available for Windows/Mac. It is notable, I can give millions of examples of articles (not game related) that have fewer results (not that I support the removal of those). Look, I just pushed the random button and I got Dale L. Walker, Cassidy's Ltd,Victor Pasmore, BTC Racing, Cotelsat, Marcos Elias, Enyinnaya Abaribe etc... I could go on for ever, with fewer results! This game is notable enough and well known in the gaming community. The fact that open source games don't have advertisement on commercial game magazines doesn't mean that it's not N. This game is notable whether you like it or not, and there are a whole lot more things out there then this wikipedia page that deserver attention. Leave this page alone already, I rewrote it to meet Wikipedia standards, now if you want to improve come and help. Peer-LAN (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable to you doesn't necessarily equate with notable for an article on Wikipedia. If it is indeed notable for Wikipedia, then you ought to have no problems showing why. Google hits aren't a recognized measure of notability. Multiple instances of independent, non-trivial coverage in notable and reliable sources are. And that's what we go by, whether you like it or not. DreamGuy (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepMerge to Master of Orion per WP:NNC if sufficient RS to establish N cannot be found.Per non-trivial magazine coverage found. Seems to have sufficient sourcing to meet V, so salting is absolutely not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Three deletion debates and no-one has produced reliable sources to indicate it passes WP:WEB? Jesus. Delete and salt, at best it gets one line in the Master of Orion series page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge to Master of Orion per WP:NNC — for now. The article already seems to meet the verifiability guidelines but it still doesn't appear to be notable enough to justify its separate existence. Also, "how many times does this need to be deleted?" is not a valid question. Since the project in a state of continuing development, it will presumably meet the notability guidelines at some time in the future.

Relevant search results:

http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/freeorion/

http://www.gamesterritory.com/?p=104

http://freeorion.en.softonic.com/

http://www.freewaregenius.com/2008/05/15/an-overview-of-free-turn-based-strategy-and-war-games/

Rankiri (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Blogs, self-published sources, primary sources... none of these nor the ones linked by Peer-Lan above are considered as reliable third-party sources acceptable under the wikiproject videogame's source list. I don't see how merging wholly unsourced content to Master of Orion is acceptable in any way, nor do I see any chance that this merge would stand for even a day without getting reverted. MLauba (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Excuse me but show me two open source games that meet those criteria of having an article on a commercial game magazine. If this how you review notability, they you might as well go and remove the whole section of open source game from Wikipedia and stick with the paid reviews. 1 2 Peer-LAN (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Response Any article whatsoever has to pass the sourcing threshold in order to stay on Wikipedia. The reason for that is simple: only through reliable third-party comment can the reader be assured that he's reading content which is as encyclopedic and neutral as possible, rather than subtly written propaganda. Bending or compromising on these requirements is basically breaking the trust between Wikipedia and the reader. If we make exceptions for a game (which is, in the grand scheme of things, rather harmless), how could we justify not making exceptions for posting nasty rumors about a politician or a celebrity coming from a random blog, which is not rather harmless? MLauba (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Not only that you compare apples to oranges, but please tell me how you keep your political standard on articles like Swfmill, BCX, hipergate, MINIX, Knark and I could keep going on but to be honest I'm afraid you'll start proposing them all for deletion for no logical reason. I usually contributed to wikipedia with pleasure; I've never meet so much iniquitous resistance. Peer-LAN (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MLauba (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, that what I meant and was looking for; thanks for pointing me towards what I should have posted instead of my comment (as they touch the same point, of your comparison not being well related to the current state of affairs).

• You appear to misunderstand my point. There are other poorly sourced articles on Wikipedia which do not meet the reliable sources policy. They are however not under consideration in this present AfD, nor is the existence of other poorly sourced articles a valid precedent. The point is, when a deletion discussion does occur, the consensus is normally formed on standing policies, not upon their subversion - unless the opposing opinion holders can make a valid case on why we should Ignore All Rules. That being said, this is only my view on the matter, and I expect I've explained it at length. If you want to pursue this further on a bilateral basis, don't hesitate to take it to my talk page. MLauba (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I'm fairly sure the available information—including independently taken screen captures—makes it safe to conclude that FreeOrion is, in fact, an open source remake of a TBS classic Master of Orion that it is similarly set in space, licensed under the GPLv2 license, available for various operating systems, currently under version 0.3.12, and so on. Considering that the open sourced nature of the game automatically makes it an unlikely review candidate for the major game reviewing publications, I think some of the googled sources, along with the official www.freeorion.org, should be enough to satisfy the merged paragraph's source requirements, therefore I still support selective merging over deletion. Rankiri (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The game has been around for a long time, though it's still in alpha, and is based on / inspired by a classic 4X game. It's worth having it in Wikipedia. If we don't want to keep it as its own article, we should at least Merge it with the Master of Orion page. I agree with Jclemens—there is no reason to salt this article. Peyre (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per LAN. — Jake Wartenberg 17:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google returns mostly download and forum links. Nothing more substantial. SharkD (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see any reliable third-party sources, necessary to demonstrate notability. Powers ^T 18:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is basically advertising. Without reliable third-party sources it cannot be a complete NPOV article. I might also add that WP:GOOGLE and WP:OTHERSTUFF are not in themselves valid arguments. bridies (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Rally cry on their forums. MLauba (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added {{afdanons}}. — Jake Wartenberg 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A rally call for improving the quality of the article... is that somehow "bad" in your opinion? Also I just joined today that forum and tried to help them with something that seemed logical at that time and I haven't even thought this will happen; after all it's a well balanced article for a quite well known open source game. I didn't expected The Spanish Inquisition. Peer-LAN (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noooobody expects the... oh never mind. Powers ^T 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding a snotty remark like "please improve what you can before some crazy ass admin starts feeling important" is somehow "bad", funnily enough. Inviting others to jump in after you've poisoned the well is less than helpful. Someoneanother 22:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to SALT !voters Why? What would salting this accomplish that simply protecting a redirect to Master of Orion wouldn't accomplish? Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response It would ensure that the fourth attempt goes through DRV and gets recreated as properly sourced, at long last. At least that's how I see it. MLauba (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can do that with a protected redirect--no non-admin would be able to change it, and DRV would be the right process to get the protection lifted. I want to make sure we're doing the right thing for the encyclopedia here, rather than just prohibiting a potential redirect (redirects are cheap) just because an enthusiastic bunch of hobbyists want their NN game included. Salting is for protecting the encyclopedia from clear harm, not for punishing enthusiastic creators of NN content. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken & vote amended. MLauba (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and maybe salt): I hate to do this, because I've so much as played the game. But then I play a lot of free games, and it's not about my personal opinion for what we include/exclude. We have policies and guidelines that are meant to ensure quality articles, and prevent personal opinion from slipping in. If this is important, find a reliable third-party source to say it is. If it isn't, then don't include it in Wikipedia until it is. Randomran (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but hold the salt, oppose merge or redirect to MoO though, this is a separate game and should be treated as such. The Softonic source looks good, but in order to provide enough material to build a solid neutral article (per notability), multiple reliable sources which cover the subject properly are needed. Game databases which contain links to the game and a stack of small articles on sites which can't be shown to be reliable aren't providing what is needed. I think there is a very good chance that this game could become more widely reviewed, but not until it has some kind of solid base (IE a version which is basically complete but can be further added to). Reviewers aren't going to fall over themselves to cover something which isn't complete in the majority of cases, give it a chance when there's hope that it will be covered. There are several sites who cover misc. freeware/open source/indie etc. games who could reasonably be argued as reliable. For instance: Jay is Games, GameZebo, Rock Paper Shotgun etc. If this is deleted then I suggest waiting for it to be built into that basically complete game then notifying as many of these reviewers as possible, if reviews do get written the article can be brought back, cited and then it's fine. Someoneanother 22:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Several comments have suggested redirecting to Master of Orion. Despite the similar name, FreeOrion is not a clone or remake of Master of Orion or any other game. The theme is similar, but design decisions are not made (solely or primarily) because of how a MOO game works. Various other games provide inspriation, but most design discussions are debated on their own merits. Geoff the Medio 75.155.168.6 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC) — 75.155.168.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• I have been editing for years under various IPs, including 66.102.65.103, 24.80.6.15 and 24.85.239.188. If you feel my comment is nonetheless unreliable, consult the Wiki Main Page of freeorion.org which states the same thing in the second sentence. Given the apparent lack of reliable secondary sources stating the FreeOrion is a clone, this should be sufficient evidence to assume for this discussion that it is not a clone. 75.155.168.6 (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I see. I was under impression that it was an open source remake of a commercially successful classic, similar in that to FreeDOOM or OpenTTD. If it's not closely based on the original game, I correct my original vote to delete and I hope the project will become more notable in the future. — Rankiri (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Aditional argument A good argument for keep that I forgot to point out is that the game enjoys a constant flow of an average of 1000 downloads a day [1]. And that is just from the direct download from Sourceforge.net, not including third party repositories or websites. That's significant unbiased data Peer-LAN (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good argument, as it has nothing to do with Wikipedia criteria of notability. Lots of YouTube videos, porn videos, news stories online and so forth would smash those hits, and we don't have individual Wikipedia articles for most of those either. DreamGuy (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Peer-LAN (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hits are not a valid replacement for notability or verifiability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt – I cannot find anything reliable that can establish notability of this game. I won't claim speedy deletion G4 as consensus seems to be against it, but my opinion is that nothing explicit has been brought forward even from the first AFD nomination. The question of the redirect should have been brought up at deletion review or can still be (as a protected version) if there is indeed a dispute as to whether the redirect would be a plausible search term, as 75.155.168.6 suggests. Otherwise, the constant recreation seems to indicate disruptive editing. MuZemike 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please note that along with asking for help on the external discussion board, peer-LAN appears to be canvassing for support on wiki too. Quantpole (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response can you read WP:CANVASS before you open you mouth from now on please. If you look, you'll see that Friendly notice, maybe... that is, if you're not just blinded by your irrational abhorrence you seem to have, because my message was limited in scale, neutral, nonpartisan and open (it's like I wrote that part of the article). So please, stop with all this Kabuki, it's just not necesary and plain impious. Peer-LAN (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted what I did in consideration of your actions and manner so far. The note may be neutral, but in the context of your behaviour regarding this matter I thought it worthwhile bringing to people's attention. People can make up their own minds on what your intention was. Quantpole (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, lets try to assume good faith and attempt to not be selectively rude. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Basically, my reasons for thinking this article should stay are the same as in the previous afd I commented on: No, third party news sources are sparse and barely existant. However, there is little question that this is a popular project, and an offshoot of an even more popular, notable game. It is clear to me by the forum references, download sites, and download statistics that this project is notable, even if it doesn't fall within the notability guidelines. Reading this afd, I fear alot of the arguments against this article are for the sake of argument, and are strictly based upon the principle of the guidelines and not whether or not the article actually is useful and of acceptable quality. It is my steadfast belief that guidelines are never perfect; In this case, the guidelines exclude what I do firmly believe is a project worth inclusion in Wikipedia. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Salt per MuZemike. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In it's current form, there is no evidence this subject exists except for it's own website and download service, meaning it fails notability guidelines completely. There are a number of arguments above for "we should keep it, it's definitely well known". No, from wikipedia's perspective, it is not. If it were well known, a secondary source would take the time to write about it, in a non-trivial way, in a reliable venue. "It's notable even though it doesn't meet the notability requirements" is an paradoxical argument. This debate is NOT whether the subject matter is notable in an objective way, it is a debate on whether it should have a wikipedia article. If it does not meet the Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, then it shouldn't be included here. At some time this subject may well become notable enough to be reviewed in periodicals, news or journals. When it is an article can be created. Not before. Note: this last comment is an argument AGAINST salting, although I understand the frustration of some editors that this inappropriate article continues to be recreated. -Markeer 23:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Master of Orion. An excellent community project, but until reliable, published sources give this game significant coverage we shouldn't have an article about it. I do not object to a short mention in the MOO article (I'm sure I've seen the freewaregenius raised in another recent AfD...)Marasmusine (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable open source project - article can be improved. - Hoplon (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Add one Magazine source for notability. 189.77.136.95 (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC) — 189.77.136.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment I've followed the .pdf link to the Full Circle Magazine article and it is indeed listed there. I'm not familiar with the magazine itself (it appears to be less then 2 years old, but that doesn't necessarily make it unimportant). This may well count as one source, I'll leave it to others to debate whether it passes WP:SOURCES. Regardless, to the "Keep" people, one source is still not enough. Multiple sources with non-trivial coverage is the goal. -Markeer 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A magazine source was found. Also, the number of people downloading this free open source game each day, and the number which have downloaded it total since it first was released, makes it notable. Dream Focus 18:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hits are not a valid replacement for notability or verifiability. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The source — "a FREE independant [sic] magazine" — appears to be comprised of reader submitted stories, so I would not immediately regard it as a reliable publication. Additionally, its coverage of FreeOrion is extremely limited. The article references FreeOrion in "your monthly list of Linux games or applications from the depths of the Internet" as one of the top five space games for Linux, but aside from that it completely fails to mention any facts about the game itself. I'm not sure if the following quote satisfies WP:GNG:

"If you prefer turn-based strategy type games, yet still love the alien side of life, FreeOrion is a great option. It's is a free turn-based strategy game based on Master of Orion. Basically, it's a space-based Civilization (or, if you're a free software lover, FreeCiv). As a nice bonus, the graphics look fairly good (especially for an open-source game)." http://dl.fullcirclemagazine.org/issue14_en.pdf — Rankiri (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.There is nothing wrong to be free and having magazine reader submitted stories does not mean that the magazine is comprised entirely of stories submitted like you are sugesting, also has to take into consideration that the submitted stories have to be aproved by the editorial, since the magazine has editorial integrity, one proof-read team, etc. It is worth mentioning that the magazine is independent of the subject(FreeOrion) and not some kind of fan blog.

The magazine is simply specialized in linux, especially Ubuntu, even their logo is just like Ubuntu logo, and having a sub-forum in Ubuntu Forums and in the Ubuntu wiki is under the Address/Link "UbuntuMagazine", but i dont know if it one official project or one 3rd Party suported the project.

So you did not say a good reason why the magazine could not be a reliable publication.

The phrase "from the depths of the Internet" is a sarcastic way to express that there is not much publicity about free and/or open source linux applications and especially in this case games and should not be interpreted in a pejorative way.

As you said "the article in the references FreeOrion one of the top five games for Linux space", is not something trivial to be in the Top 5 of all space games for Linux.

It does not completely fails to mention any facts about The Game itself. As shown in the quote "If you prefer turn-based strategy type games, yet still love the alien side of life, FreeOrion is a great option. It's is a free turn-based strategy game based on Master of Orion. Basically, it's a space-based Civilization". It address the subject directly in detail genre and somewhat the gameplay(turn-based strategy) , the theme(alien side of life/civilization), and if you consider the comparison(Master of Orion) it tells much about the game. There's even a small screenshot of the game.

In addition, the article objective is not a review, but to inform what games won the Top 5, thus increasing notability, popularity, etc, of FreeOrion and other games.

Sorry my bad English, it is not my native language.

201.36.214.10 (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC) — 201.36.214.10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment Any source considered as a reliable one needs editorial oversight, as laid out in WP:SOURCES. There is no indication of editorial policies, in fact, most if not all content is user-submitted - see here. The "top 5 Linux space games" isn't any form of contest or survey, as indicated on the magazine page itself, this too is user-submitted. Last but not least, the onus is not on Rankiri to demonstrate that a source is not reliable but on those submitting it that it is reliable. That being said, even if the source were to be reliable (which I contest), the mention remains entirely trivial. MLauba (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no reliable sources establish notability for this.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.