- 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. Aoidh ( talk) 01:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Bos Wars
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bos Wars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The article currently cites some primary sources, 2 mentions (literally 3 words each) at a Linux directory site, and some trivial coverage (a few paragraphs each) at 3 download sites. Searches for "bos wars" via the WP:VG/LRS custom Google searches returned 0 results. A general Google search found only the usual primary sources, database/download sites, etc. Ironically, I can't even find any forum posts about this game, let alone reliable sources. Woodroar ( talk) 22:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar ( talk) 22:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Normally I'd say merge to Stratagus as a WP:ATD but that particular engine doesn't seem notable either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)- Comment: It's not lacking coverage. Viewing as only a "video game" is too narrow an approach; this is software. Likely due to its permissive licensing model, the subject of this article appears to be utilized extensively in academic and analytical settings for various forms of scientific research. Wherein coverage is at a depth much greater than typically found in banal press covering simple entertainments and amusements. Some examples:
doi:
10.1155/2011/834026,
doi:
10.1145/2598394.2598486,
doi:
10.1155/2011/834026,
doi:
10.1145/2700529,
[1] (pdf), etc. --
dsprc
[talk] 14:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for these! However, I'm not sure how usable these are. They appear to be open-access research papers, a conference presentation, and a master's paper/dissertation, all from graduate students. I'm no expert but from my understanding, they wouldn't meet
WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Woodroar (
talk) 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- They cover not only gameplay and design aspects, but also – at extreme detail – the underlying technologies. This software is clearly notable for its unique algorithmic approach as stated in the aforementioned journals.
- What does open access have to do with reliability? Open access isn't preprint, or a blog post; it simply means not being locked behind a multi-million dollar subscription or $500++ paywall to read a single article, and nothing more. (Not having corporate publishing cartels holding monopolies on distribution of knowledge is a good thing) These journals in particular are peer-reviewed, scientific journals, with IJCGT having a distinguished international editorial board (instead of a single individual as sole editor). Association for Computing Machinery is one of the oldest, premier computer science research and knowledge organizations in the world. The research within the ACM article in question, was cited at least 13 times by numerous other prestigious journals… Also clearly stated it's peer-reviewed (that's what "Refereed" means…): doi: 10.1145/3026723 – which means it meets the plain reading of SCHOLARSHIP. (Also!: grad students are the ones conducting most actual research at educational institutions… at least in the true sciences…) -- dsprc [talk] 02:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for these! However, I'm not sure how usable these are. They appear to be open-access research papers, a conference presentation, and a master's paper/dissertation, all from graduate students. I'm no expert but from my understanding, they wouldn't meet
WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Woodroar (
talk) 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This fails WP:N and there was no significant coverage that I could find. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as it was covered twice by LinuxUser, see de:Bos Wars. Matthias M. ( talk) 14:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment AmigaOS4 version was reviewed in the Amiga Future 86 (September/October 2010), p.21 [2]. Other sources: short review on idnes.cz [3] (major Czech news site), review of the Linux version on root.cz [4] (Czech news site covering Linux). I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor ( talk) 05:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I have struck through my delete !vote above. Several alternate-language sources have come to light that proves it got WP:SIGCOV. They seem reliable and enough to base an entire article on, unless someone can prove otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:01, 14 April 2023 (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.
- 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. Aoidh ( talk) 01:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Bos Wars
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bos Wars ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The article currently cites some primary sources, 2 mentions (literally 3 words each) at a Linux directory site, and some trivial coverage (a few paragraphs each) at 3 download sites. Searches for "bos wars" via the WP:VG/LRS custom Google searches returned 0 results. A general Google search found only the usual primary sources, database/download sites, etc. Ironically, I can't even find any forum posts about this game, let alone reliable sources. Woodroar ( talk) 22:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar ( talk) 22:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Delete Normally I'd say merge to Stratagus as a WP:ATD but that particular engine doesn't seem notable either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)- Comment: It's not lacking coverage. Viewing as only a "video game" is too narrow an approach; this is software. Likely due to its permissive licensing model, the subject of this article appears to be utilized extensively in academic and analytical settings for various forms of scientific research. Wherein coverage is at a depth much greater than typically found in banal press covering simple entertainments and amusements. Some examples:
doi:
10.1155/2011/834026,
doi:
10.1145/2598394.2598486,
doi:
10.1155/2011/834026,
doi:
10.1145/2700529,
[1] (pdf), etc. --
dsprc
[talk] 14:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for these! However, I'm not sure how usable these are. They appear to be open-access research papers, a conference presentation, and a master's paper/dissertation, all from graduate students. I'm no expert but from my understanding, they wouldn't meet
WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Woodroar (
talk) 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- They cover not only gameplay and design aspects, but also – at extreme detail – the underlying technologies. This software is clearly notable for its unique algorithmic approach as stated in the aforementioned journals.
- What does open access have to do with reliability? Open access isn't preprint, or a blog post; it simply means not being locked behind a multi-million dollar subscription or $500++ paywall to read a single article, and nothing more. (Not having corporate publishing cartels holding monopolies on distribution of knowledge is a good thing) These journals in particular are peer-reviewed, scientific journals, with IJCGT having a distinguished international editorial board (instead of a single individual as sole editor). Association for Computing Machinery is one of the oldest, premier computer science research and knowledge organizations in the world. The research within the ACM article in question, was cited at least 13 times by numerous other prestigious journals… Also clearly stated it's peer-reviewed (that's what "Refereed" means…): doi: 10.1145/3026723 – which means it meets the plain reading of SCHOLARSHIP. (Also!: grad students are the ones conducting most actual research at educational institutions… at least in the true sciences…) -- dsprc [talk] 02:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for these! However, I'm not sure how usable these are. They appear to be open-access research papers, a conference presentation, and a master's paper/dissertation, all from graduate students. I'm no expert but from my understanding, they wouldn't meet
WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
Woodroar (
talk) 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This fails WP:N and there was no significant coverage that I could find. Shooterwalker ( talk) 16:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep as it was covered twice by LinuxUser, see de:Bos Wars. Matthias M. ( talk) 14:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment AmigaOS4 version was reviewed in the Amiga Future 86 (September/October 2010), p.21 [2]. Other sources: short review on idnes.cz [3] (major Czech news site), review of the Linux version on root.cz [4] (Czech news site covering Linux). I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor ( talk) 05:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I have struck through my delete !vote above. Several alternate-language sources have come to light that proves it got WP:SIGCOV. They seem reliable and enough to base an entire article on, unless someone can prove otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:01, 14 April 2023 (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.