English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Open source games

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 keep. Those proposing deletion (aside from the nominator) actually say that there should be an article called "Open source games" on Wikipedia, it's just that it needs references and cleanup. There's actually nothing stopping anyone from doing this - editors may feel free to be bold and totally change it, if need be. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Open source games

Fails WP:V: This article is an essay with claims that are flat-out unverifiable. It defines open source games as having free, non-proprietary content, which is a definition that can never be verified. Even its external links list games that do not fit this definition. The Linux Game Tome, for example, has an entry for Doom 3. This article looks more like a PR spin by some competitor to bash gaming companies that release their source code like Id Software. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Tuxide 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment from nominator (so I don't get bashed for WP:RUBBISH) My reason for putting this through AFD is that this article consists entirely of unverifiable, original research as pointed out in my nomination, and its external link section is context-free. I am not against seeing such an article on open source games get recreated in a better form, to avoid it getting salted...if there really is such a reason to have an article on this topic. Within good faith, I believe the current article is unredeemable. Tuxide 20:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with nom; Article isn't supported by any notable sources. Fails WP:V. - Rjd0060 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge with List of open source games. Together, they have sufficient WP:RS. Bearian 15:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The nominator obviously fails to qualify the article for deletion. The definition of open source has evolved to be more than just a program's source code. It is a common misconception to claim that open source refers strictly to software. It is now a set of principles and practices. See open source and open source (disambiguation) articles for more details and examples. The following is from the latter:

Open content, another term for open source, when the distinction between source and product is less clear.

And the following is from the article's discussion:

There is still confusion with "open source" that newbies think it means software, which is not only what it means. We should not give a definition that only includes software and excludes all other products. That would be npov. Here is the definition by Pengo:

denotes that a product includes permission to use its source code, design documents, or origins.

Note that "source code" is a form of "origins," so it is redundant.

Here is the broader npov version:
denotes that the origins of a product are publicly accessible in part or in whole

--- Mr. Ballard 20:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

If open source is the origins, then content is part of those origins and must be open, as least in "part", if not in "whole". Quake 3 Arena's content was never open, neither in part nor in whole.

Indeed, we need an NPOV on this. Implying that "open source games" can exclusively refer to "open source code", disregarding the content is not an NPOV. Why should it suddenly be any different when applied to open source games compared to open source film, open source journalism, open source politics or open source culture? While the open source may be commonly applied to source code, such application is not exclusive, as has been proven by open source article.

The article/definition in question is, in fact, verifiable with a reliable source. The specific example given in the article lists Quake 3 Arena, which can only be acquired via a retail(or online) purchase as a game. Therefore, as a game, Quake 3 Arena cannot be freely published and distributed as open source game due to copyrighted content. The distinction is important, since definition of a video game or computer game confirms that it requires more than just a source code or an engine to qualify for being called a game. Creating an open content to replace the proprietary one and publishing it as open source game qualifies for a distinctly new game, which can no longer be called Quake 3 Arena. Such a project has, in fact, qualified and has been published as an open source game OpenArena.

The Open Source Definition by Open Source Initiative states the following:
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.

Moreover, the term open content has been derived from open source, as has been mentioned before. In fact, the following article] at OpenContent] refers to open content as open source content as an alternative and acceptable definition.

If open source games definition simply does not exist and is unverifiable, then no game can legitimately claim to be "open source". Any game found to make such a claim would, therefore, be deliberately misleading in its description. Open source has never been about proprietary dependence or deliberate obfuscation.

In addition, the suggestion to remove the link to The Linux Game Tome is completely baseless, since the site does not have to cover open source games exclusively to be a great example of one that does cover them extensively, especially because it clearly states the licenses involved with every game listed, so it is not misleading in any way.

I also get a distinct impression from the nominator that his motives are less than sincere. He is making unprofessional and baseless accusations and is drawing personal conclusions without any proof whatsoever, which are completely irrelevant to this discussion in the first place. Contrary to his claims, a "competitor's PR spin" is what seems to be prevalent in his line of reasoning.

And that is all I'm going to say for my part.

--Bristn 18:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) — Bristn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tuxide 18:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
'Keep all it needs is expansion. The meaning of "the external links section is context free" escapes me--it contains relevant links; its not supposed to contain encyclopedic content. And even the nom. thinks the subject is notable. DGG (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from nominator I never said the subject was notable enough for inclusion; I just didn't bother citing WP:N as a reason for deletion. There is already an article called free games which in my opinion is the correct word for what this article is about, but proposing a merge just because I said that would be original research since it doesn't cite the definition either. Since this discussion has already started, I'm not going WP:ALLORNOTHING here. Tuxide 00:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Going with WP:RUBBISH. The topic itself certainly deserves an article, and I agree with all that was said above to that effect. But then, is the current text on this page an encyclopedic article? A personal blog and a link to the open source definition as references, and three external links the first two of which likely fail even the criteria for external links. So all of the (very short) article text itself is unverified and most of it sounds more like personal opinion. I would say, this AfD was not needed, but instead someone who starts a proper article on this topic. But since the current one is not salvageable, I don't see a problem deleting it for now - of course the result would be that it will be recreated and likely without any better concept and secondary literature, hence the weak. --Allefant 09:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 10:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Video game#Development. This is not a game genre, but "a way in which video games can be developed", belonging in that section. User:Krator (t c) 22:04, 30 September 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.