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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 11:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HyperRogue[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up a total of nine results.

a Metacritic listing ("No score yet, based on 0 Critic Reviews")
"HyperRogue, the non-Euclidean roguelike, is a mind-melting masterpiece", an in-depth piece by Rock, Paper, Shotgun
a listing, also at Rock, Paper, Shotgun
a small preview, "Don't lose your way in non-Euclidean roguelike HyperRogue"
a listing at GameSpot ("We have no news or videos for HyperRogue. Sorry!")
Again GameSpot, ("We have no player reviews for HyperRogue yet. If you've played it, write a review and tell us what you think!")
PocketGamer again, with a listing
a listing at Hardcore Gamer, which links to "Indie Gala Friday Special Bundle For March 13, 2015"
and an empty listing at GameZone

Out of the nine reliable sources, there are two that actually discuss it. Not enough WP:SIGCOV. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know, this seems like a really marginal case. In my searches (books, scholars, sites), I haven't found anything reliable that wasn't already mentioned by OP or that it's in the article. I have removed countless of random blogs and community writer pieces on reliable sites like Gamasutra/HonestGamers from the reception section. That leaves three sources, all of which I'll try to analyze now. The first one is Rock, Paper, Shotgun one at [1]. While the source itself is reliable and the text is in-depth, it doesn't tell much about the game at all, and it's mostly a commentary. Meanwhile, Pocket Gamer's bits about the game at [2] actually seem stronger than RPS piece, spending two paragraphs talking about its gameplay directly. And there is a really great in-depth scholar coverage, co-authored by University of Warsaw's staff at [3]. Overall, it seems like a borderline pass of WP:GNG at best. My proposal is to merge this into a new section at Hyperbolic geometry (preferably called "Hyperbolic geometry in video games") where it would fit nicely per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this is a borderline case thanks to the academic paper's existence. But with only one piece of WP:SIGCOV from critical sources, it's hard to argue that this game made a notable impact. I like to err on the side of having many pieces of SIGCOV, simply because there are plenty of games that easily fulfill the criteria, so as a bar, it isn't particularly high._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, the problem is that you didn't explain why my merge WP:ATD argument is invalid which is something we should follow per the WP:PRESERVE policy. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting it to that article in question may be WP:SURPRISE. Even though I do support adding the references to the mentioned article in the appropriate section._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not a bad argument actually. It actually did a swing for me to delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You've omitted a substantial reference, Chapter 44 of Harris, John. (2020). Exploring Roguelike Games. Milton: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-000-16949-2. OCLC 1164495662. It's also mentioned briefly in Osudin, Daniil; Child, Chris; He, Yang-Hui (2019). "Rendering Non-Euclidean Space in Real-Time Using Spherical and Hyperbolic Trigonometry". Computational Science – ICCS 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing: 543–550. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22750-0_49. ISBN 978-3-030-22750-0. And that's just what I found in a few minutes on Google Books. That custom Google search you used may be too restrictive. (I do agree that the Wikipedia article needs to be heavily reworked, though.) -Apocheir (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are also 20-something hits on Google Scholar, although some are repeats. -Apocheir (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, I stand corrected. Thanks Jovanmilic97 and Apocheir, I missed some serious reliable sources. I've withdrawn my nomination. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that the nominator has withdrawn the nomination in later commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Northamerica1000, I've withdrawn my nomination, shouldn't the discussion be closed? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: No, because a delete !vote remains existent in the discussion, this cannot be kept as speedy keep/withdrawn. See WP:SKCRIT point #1 for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha! Zxcvbnm, have you seen the new references? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans: Yes, I withdraw my delete vote as well due to that and change it to "Keep". You are free to close the discussion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These new sources need review. Academic conference proceedings are not edited or peer reviewed. They're on par with an academic blog for reliability. Second, Kopczyński is both the researcher and the game designer. It's a primary source. Exploring Roguelike Games hasn't even been released yet, so not sure how you'd be citing it. Are any of the other academic sources more than a passing mention? All in all, this needs more scrutiny. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 04:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not being officially released yet, Exploring Roguelike Games is on Google Books. Not sure how that happened. I realize that isn't ideal, since GBooks has a page limit for some books, including this one. But yes, these new sources need to be reviewed before either a decision to keep or a decision to delete can be confidently made. -Apocheir (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2020 (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.