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. WjBscribe 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP[edit]

This is a wondefully written bunch of WP:OR. It's obvious a lot of work and thought has gone in to this but since it's very clearly a lot of original research and completely unsourced, I cannot argue for it's inclusion here on Wikipedia. It has been tagged ((confusing)) and ((unreferenced)) for a while now without any improvement. Perhaps a home can be found for it somewhere - just not here. Arkyan 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if anyone can dig out sources & references otherwise very reluctantly delete. As per Arkyan I really hope someone manages to rescue this, IMO it's one of the best articles I've seen in a long time. Iridescenti 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am not into these games, but I think it is relevant to the gamers who play them. I agree that it is written in an essay style, but it sounds logical enough. Throwing it out would be over the top. HagenUK 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Even if it needs cleanup DKP systems are integral to nearly every modern MMORPG, deletion isn't a request for cleanup Owlofcreamcheese 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I probably don't have knowledge enough to discern original research. It is confusing (to me), but it seems to be sourced enough. Realkyhick 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the above keep votes - The problem with this article isn't that it needs cleanup but that it is OR and lacks sourcing. The sources given in the article are not reliable sources, as they are all links to DKP calculators or different MMORPG guilds' websites explaining their DKP rules. None of these provide any independent sourcing on what DKP is. If the consensus here is that digging up a guild website that gives their spin on DKP rules constitutes valid sourcing I will gladly withdraw this nomination. I do agree that it is a highly notable concept and of value to gamers, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. Don't get me wrong - I like this article, but it's still completely original research and fails guidelines. Someone please come up with a valid reason to keep it other than "useful". Arkyan 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Scholar yields this and that, a Media Theory article and a Communication masters' thesis respectively, both of which discuss DKP in a social context, but not for more than a paragraph or so. The former actually cites this Wikipedia article, which I find totally hilarious and completely useless at the same time. Google Scholar also points to it in the index of MMG's For Dummies. Nifboy 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that one of those articles references this Wikipedia article is a perfect illustration of why WP:ATT and avoiding WP:OR is so important. People use Wikipedia as a source of information, and allowing articles that have information we can't verify to propagate information of a dubious origin would be poor editorial work. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, common in MMORPGs, but just about everything in the article is WP:OR. In a way, it is nothing more than pretty common neologism. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!! Didn't know what DKP is, looked it up here, article explained it, I understood it ... good job, what else you want ? User:nixman — 89.55.185.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I'm not an expert on this but there would be very few citable sources on this because it it largely a concept and system that has been developed in places like gaming forums and guild forums. This article is the best overall explanation of the many different aspects that may or may not make up a guild's DKP system, and I cannot see how this could be considered a "gaming guide" because, well, it is definatly not a guide for a game. DKP is HUGE in MMORPG's and there are millions of people who play MMO's. I just can't see how this is not eligable for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.244.36 (talk • contribs) — 66.93.244.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I needed this info and couldn't have found it elsewhere. Understand the importance of sourcing - but it's tough when sources don't exist. Do we want to destroy information that doesn't exist elsewhere?Fiveoldroad— Fiveoldroad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - this AfD seems to be getting hit with a lot of IP users and accounts with very few edits. That's not a grounds for discounting !votes but I would like to point out that by their own admission, the article is unsourced and likely to remain unsourced due to the fact that this information is not to be found anywhere. While I agree that it is a valuable source of information, that is the very definition of WP:OR. Wikipedia cannot be a primary source of information! I'm not keen on destroying information, and I wouldn't be opposed to userfying this somewhere until a more appropriate permanent home can be found for it. Wikipedia is not that place. No one has addressed the issue of lack of verifiability, lack of attribution, original research, and so on. All the arguments hinge on WP:USEFUL without addressing concerns regarding policies and guidelines. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:52, 27 March 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.