Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nerf (computer gaming) (2nd 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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nerf (computer gaming)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

The article cites no sources, and I have been unable to find any I feel confident enough to cite as appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, rather than a gaming discussion forum.
Objecting editors, while insisting that there must be sources, have been unwilling or unable to cite them. With the rewrite by Protonk (talk) and other changes this is no longer true. sinneed (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the term may eventually enter the general language, I am very dubious as to whether this and a large number of similar terms belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia. There are adequate online jargon dictionaries and gaming-specific wikis for these online terms, I think. sinneed (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies for the fact that this is a "2nd nomination" even though purists will note that there never was a proper 1st effort. I was too new to wiki, and simply failed at the submission process. sinneed (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete better suited for Wiktionary or UrbanDictionary than here. JuJube (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note. Says second nomination, but there doesn't seem to be a first. Equendil Talk 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Any online gamer will know what it means, and the term is used outside gaming communities now and then, there *might* be an article to build on that and all the associated drama, but right now it's just
  original research. Equendil Talk 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Article significantly reworked and demonstration that an article can be built has been made. Equendil Talk 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources, just a non-notable neologism. Martarius (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While the term seems to be a non-notable neologism, its referent is interesting even if it is not
  notable enough for a stand-alone article. As a Category:Video game design issue relating to Category:Video game gameplay, can anybody find a good article to merge this into? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment Technically, it would fit better under some kind of article under
    Video game balance or Video game balancing, but such an article does not exist. Randomran (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Notable game term. See also here and here. The article right now is patent
  WP:OR, but I think that with a little bit of effort it could become something decent. Randomran (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge to
  notable enough (with enough secondary sources) for its own article. --ColorOfSuffering (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Video game culture#Slang_and_terminology per ColorOfSuffering. It seems evident that there are insufficient reliable sources discussing the act of nerfing to warrant a separate article for it at this stage, but it has the kind of semi-notability and search term value (not to mention inwards links) to warrant a merge to an appropriate terminology article/section, and that's the best target IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that rewrite has established sufficient notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject is notable and has been discussed by sources. I'll check back with a few. Protonk (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Randomman. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok.

1. Rubicite Breastplace Priced to Sell, a whitepaper written by tim burke (not the baseball player), a games researcher. Talks about nerfs coming down the pike and how they influence player actions.
2. Terranova posts Terra Nova (blog) is a games researcher group blog on the subject of virtual worlds. The blog itself is not RS, of course, but the individual authors are (double check to see, of course)
3. Raph Koster's website A dicdef, but Ralph Koster Raph Koster (helped make Star Wars Galaxies) does a lot of work in the field of virtual worlds.
4. Owned: Finding a Place for Virtual World Property Rights in the Michigan State Law Review defines and explains "nerfed" in the contest of property rights.
5. Designing Virtual Worlds, page 305.
6. Julian Dibbell talks about it in his book, Play Money
7. In the New York Times talking about player protests after a nerf in AO.

• I think that's enough for now. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewritten Protonk (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to point to this as a productive AFD that is a true discussion, not a vote. Instead of people blindly asserting back and forth and avoiding each other arguments, people actually address each other's arguments with evidence and policy. The fact that Protonk took some time to rewrite the article is a huge bonus. I'm just impressed that people wasted less time jumping down each other's throats, and more time actually addressing the concerns. Randomran (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't followed enough of these AFD things to know if this is unusual. It has certainly been interesting, and it has resulted in some valuable information for me. I think the rewrite by Protonk (talk) is excellent. I don't know if I am entitled to an opinion, since I started the whole thing, but aside from the "Does this kind of thing belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia?" question, I think the article is now an example of a "real" Wikipedia article. I have no idea what forum might be appropriate for the larger question... or even if it is worth wider consideration. I thank everyone who has "voiced" an opinion so far, and in advance those who still will. sinneed (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are interested, there is a
  Request for Comment on that issue(broadly): Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. Protonk (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Change to a solid, boldface keep after said rewrite and improvements. Definitely now meets the
  MuZemike (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep after some excellent sourcing and rewriting, a notable concept which is now treated broadly and cited. Someoneanother 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — after a good rewrite, it suitably demonstrates its notability. Kudos to Protonk. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• From the German language Wikipedia (and no, I never realized they were crosslinked *blink*), some possible additional sources:

1. Donna Gibbs / Kerri-Lee Krause: Cyberlines 2.0: Languages and Cultures of the Internet. James Nicholas, Albert Park (Austr.) 2006, ISBN 1-875-40842-8, S. 180
2. Jessica Mulligan / Bridgette Patrovsky: Developing Online Games: An Insider's Guide. New Riders, Indianapolis (Ind.) 2003, ISBN 1-592-73000-0, S. 280-281: "Bug-Fixing versus Nerfing" sinneed (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2008 (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.