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 AND CLEAN UP. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roguelike[edit]

Article is entirely original reasearch, including definition/description of the genre, "family tree", appraisals of "roguelike" games. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't dispute that this article is pretty much full of OR, but so are most articles on Wikipedia. Give the editors some time to cite sources and clean it up. It's a valid topic, look at how many articles link to it! — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm honestly surprised that this article has no sources; it's a well-known genre to gamers, particularly old-schoolers (I'm talking pre-2600). It should be marked for cleanup, not deleted. Danny Lilithborne 22:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable genre of games. Original research can be removed without deleting the article. That ADOM, Angband and Nethack are generally considered roguelikes shouldn't be too hard to verify. The definition has probably been the subject of many flamewars in rec.games.roguelike.misc and rec.games.roguelike.development, but the description in the article seems to be pretty accurately describing what is thought in these groups. Kusma (討論) 23:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may not be directly sourcd, but there are sources. This article is not entirely OR, and presenting it as such is disengenuous. If there are sections you are concerned about, deal with then. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is a real concept, with websites, forums, and newsgroups. That means keep. FrozenPurpleCube 00:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well defined game genre. Just pull in some references to the term from the external links and it should be set. --Vossanova ^o< 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well defined, well established gaming genre. Is a very established open source community. Most of the references would be to fan/developer websites and newsgroups as discussed above. Garrie 01:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENTThis proposal totally ignores the section Roguelike#Sources which is a comprehensive enough list of online sources which could easily be used to recreate the article. I have additionally added a link to the Roguelike Development FAQ, which again, thoroughly discusses the key points of the article but from the point of view of informing developers of a game.Garrie 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Just to be fair, I added that information after the AfD was proposed, once it came to my attention that sources were lacking. I don't think this was a good AfD, but the proposer didn't miss that section. FrozenPurpleCube 04:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your adding the section, by the way. Now those sources need to be integrated as citations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to withdraw your nomination now, it might be worth considering. I doubt any argument for deletion will appear. FrozenPurpleCube 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that citations be provided inline, it is a stylistic issue. If you think otherwise please provide me a link to the relevant policy - not guideline.Garrie 05:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have told you on my talk page, the WP:CITEMOS gives three appropriate styles for citations: All of them use in-line citations. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Verifiable and notable. Just needs cleanup, but it seems even that has already begun. Shimeru 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. This is a long-established gaming format with a solid community of support. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable, notable, and sources have started to appear. Agree with Chris Griswold that individual statements need to be assigned to the sources, either with inline cites, or other similar methods. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per Frecklefoot above. Coll7 07:53, 30 November 2006 (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.