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. Consensus is that the article needs work to make it less promotional, but meets our inclusion requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NProtect GameGuard[edit]

NProtect GameGuard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not notable per WP:NSOFT. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - a Wikipedia Editor using an essay (= non binding personal viewpoint & private opinions written by a few Wikipedia Editors) as a deletion rationale cannot be taken seriously, as the usage of an essay is not a valid criteria for an AfD nomination. The nominating editor is advised to educate himself with Wikipedia's Deletion Policy and WP:BEFORE (especially Point # D.).
  

Now, here's my rationale for my Strong-Keep iVote: nProtect GameGuard passes WP:GNG. There are a couple of reliable published sources which are independent of the subject & unrelated to the software product. These sources have addressed the nProtect GameGuard software directly and in detail, thusly fulfilling WP:GNG. The sources are reliable; they have editorial integrity (= editorial oversight) and the editorial staff is listed on their site. Here are 5 reliable sources:

1) nProtect GameGuard is written about in a notable book, "Entertainment Computing - ICEC 2008: 7th International Conference", edited by Scott M. Stevens & Shirley Saldamarco, published by Springer Science+Business Media in 2008. See page 96: "Recently, anti-cheating software programs, such as PunkBuster and GameGuard, have been widely deployed in online games to prevent cheating". The author continues to describe in detail how the GameGuard software works.

2) Kotaku, notable video gaming site owned and published by Gawker Media with 19 member Editorial Staff listed on their site, has an article on nProtect written by senior editor Mike Fahey: Hooray! Aion Drops GameGuard For Launch

3) MCV Magazine, notable Computer and Video Games magazine from the United Kingdom has a detailed article on nProtect.

4) The Korea IT Times, notable IT journal from Seoul, Korea, characterizes the nProtect GameGuard as one of three software programs which "dominate the online game security market". (Wiselogic, the Hidden Champion in Online Game Security).

5) French Tom's Hardware informs us that nProtect GameGuard "is used by several games".

There are more sources available, especially in the Korean language. With these 5 sources which are presented here, the notability requirements of WP:GNG are fulfilled, and so the article should be kept. Thank you. 93.133.24.148 (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The MCV article looks a lot like a press release. The others are mostly trivial mentions. However, there are quite a non-English few hits in a WP:VG/RS Google custom search. I'm not really sure how much I trust Google Translate to translate technical articles, so I think this could use input from someone who's able to read them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:VG/RS link, NinjaRobotPirate. I did some custom search and found a couple of other reliable sources which discuss GameGuard in detail (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Meanwhile, I partially disagree with your assessment that the 5 sources are mostly trivial mentions. The Kotaku source for instance discusses GameGuard in detail (=significantly), informing the reader that GameGuard is "intrusive" and causes problems like "crashing programs, not playing nice with Windows 7, and just generally behaving like a root kit". Also, the academic peer-reviewed book is a most reliable source according to WP:RS. This book was edited by Scott M. Stevens & Shirley Saldamarco, and contains several academic papers which were peer-reviewed and vetted by the ICEC editorial board which consists of scholars from a wide range of respected accredited universities (e.g. Drexel University, Bentley University, Syracuse University, Carnegie Mellon University etc.). Here's some additional info on the book from the publisher. The book addresses GameGuard directly and in detail, outlining how it works, mentioning its strenghts and flaws.

Lastly, I found this detailed and in-depth independent article on GameGuard. The link is preserved in the Wayback Machine and here as the original link is no longer working. The source is the website of The AbleGamers Foundation; the article was written by one of their directors Steve Spohn. 93.135.11.121 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep actually with this case because the article has enough information and sourcing for an article. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With the sourcing provided, appears to meet WP:GNG, but definitely needs work to tone down the promotional aspect of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 9 February 2016 (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.