Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DKP (3rd nomination)

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. The keep arguments here are thoroughly refuted, and the article has had plenty of time to improve. Mango juice^talk 20:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP (3rd nomination)

This article, while well written, does not assert the notability of the topic, and could not possibly be rewritten to assert any notability. Although World of Warcraft, Everquest and other MMORPGs are notable, fan-made systems used by their players do not automatically become notable by association. Popularity aside, the only sources currently in the article are:

Guides on how to use DKP, written by WoW players
Definitions of DKP from lists of gaming terminology
Trivial mentions of DKP in articles about WoW
A single "fun" whitepaper on DKP which links this Wikipedia article in a footnote

Those don't strike me as reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and no sources other than guild sites and gaming guide sites can be found, resulting in an article that states what DKP is, but not its impact on gaming or the real world. The arguments for keeping in the past consisted of "I like it," "It's useful" and "Lots of people play WoW." The article would work well on a gaming wiki such as WoWWiki, but not here. Phony Saint 18:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping not to see this one on AfD again for a bit, and considered suggesting it's too early to put this one through the AfD grinder again so soon - but given the changes made to the article I suppose it's appropriate. I was the nominator for the previous 2 AfD's, and both times my beef was that the article was a massive WP:OR piece and a repository for links to guild websites. Since the second AfD, I have made an attempt to rewrite the article and purge the OR elements. While I feel it is a massive improvement in terms of the issues I had with it, there is still the issue of notability and encyclopedic content. Regarding N, my gut reaction is to say "Yes, this is notable. It is a well known concept within the context of MMORPG's." That said, the problem is that the concept is only notable within the context of the games and to date there is a paucity of reliable, secondary, independent sources to satisfy notability guidelines. Secondly, as the closer of the last AfD stated, this article needs to focus on encyclopedic content - history of the subject, measurable impact it has had, etc - and less on descriptive analysis and, essentially, "game guide material." My attempts to remove OR material and apply the given sources appropriately still don't do much at all to alleviate the fact that this is material still better suited to a game guide, such as Wowwiki as suggested by the nom, than a general knowledge encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

I dislike the conundrum that this article presents. As demonstrated by the previous nominations, there is little community consensus to delete this information, and I don't percieve that as changing. On the other hand there is the undeniable fact that this article suffers from a number of problems with regards to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, also well demonstrated by the previous nominations. It feels like an unecessary stalemate where we are saying "Yeah, this article is a mess and no one knows how to fix it, but we can't delete it either, so it's a no-consensus conclusion." I find the continual lack of consensus dissatisfying. I cannot quite endorse the article as it stands but also cannot deny that deletion would be in contravention to consensus. There must be a solution. To that end I am forced to suggest stripping this down to a barebones definition (sans the detailed analysis) and merging the resultant definition into Massively multiplayer online role-playing game terms and acronyms, while retaining this as a redirect and allowing for future recreation if and when the reliable secondary sources to establish an encyclopedic (not game-guide material) article. If the agreeable, stripped-down definition is still too large to merge, then retain it as a stub. Arkyan  ^(talk) 19:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment the problem with such merges is that they usually lead to loss of content, & the good material is more extensive than the single paragraph that would fit there. And that article is quite long already. I think that we need to find a better way or organizing its, though it's not really my area of expertise. (I note that we can probably expect academic studies etc etc. in future years--they would eventually justify good articles.)DGG 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried my best to "fix" the article. Anyone else who thinks they can do more to make it more encyclopedic is welcome to do so. By now I've reached a point where it's hard for me to get worked up further about this issue, and if consensus is that the most recent revisions are acceptable then I'll support an outright keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For articles like this, it is a challenge to find outside sources that are fully "independent" of the subject, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Shouldn't be merged because it stands well on its own. Capmango 21:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it's inherently difficult to find independent sources, then Wikipedia is the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I know nothing about the subject matter, but comparing the current version to previous versions it seems to me this one is marginally better. If past decisions in AfD were keep, then I don't see why this one should be any different. That said, I think notability is a legit concern. --Kangaru99 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I have played WoW and heard of it often, I rarely heard external sources citing it, let alone the WoW website (forums aside). Notability within a small community does not necessarily translate into notability in the whole world.--Kylohk 09:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that a global level of notability is our threshold. I haven't seen any guideline on how big a community needs to be before it's big enough to imbue notability. Capmango 01:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly these games are ubiquitous enough to be within our scope by any standard--we certainly have an extensive collection of articles about this and other similar games--and the article is more general than just the specific game where the terminology originated. By common estimation, this is the heartland of WP.DGG 03:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The games are certainly notable, but why does that notability extend to related fan-made systems? DKP does not have multiple reliable sources, and nobody knows how widespread DKP is. Simply saying "DKP is used in WoW and Everquest, so it must be notable" is not a good argument for notability. Phony Saint 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this isn't notable - G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on this one. I prefer we find a way to incorporate into a MMORPG-related article. The idea of splitting items in MMORPG didn't start yesterday; rather, it has been around a while. I guess I'm neutral leaning keep/merge - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:24, 14 June 2007 (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.