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 - as per consensus in this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake2[edit]

Jake2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A Java port of a commercial video game. This product never reached version 1. I not even sure if the project is still active. This could be a single line in the Quake II article. Certainly not enough quality information for an article. Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The port is complete and working, even is the version number did not reached version 1, this is not a Beta (and I'm not a developer of this game). The forum is still active (I checked just today). This project is not interesting because it is a port of Quake II IMHO, but because it is a straight port in Java (it was even mentioned by a Sun developer in a white paper about JOGL (the paper is quoted in the article). Hervegirod (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is explicitly cited as one successful example of a Java Web start app in Sun's Java 6 update 10 release note (one page) ? There's also O'Reilly article. There's two academic papers (one dating from 2006, one 2009), one specifically about using it in Grid computing, the other cited by other papers ? Plus the part of WP:N you refer is a guide on when to add an article about an academic, not about citing academic work in an article (even if the article you mentioned was cited by other research papers, I added the source). BTW, the Joystick article was quoting another academic paper which was also added as source. Hervegirod (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My main query is if the academic papers are peer reviewed or not (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary for academic paper to be peer reviewed in order to be used as a source. What WP:RS say is Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available, not that only peer-reviewed publications can be used. Plus it adds The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. The paper about eye detection in video games, which used Jake2 for one of its experiments, was part of (ACM's SIGCHI conference proceedings, the world's leading organization in Human–Computer Interaction according to wikipedia), and was cited 5 times in other papers according to portal.acm.org.Hervegirod (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this gives us one reliable source, then I'm considering N#cite_note-3. Could be a good starting point for a broader subject such as, well, Eye detectionFace detection, which is the subject of the paper. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 23:54, 23 July 2009 (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.