Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zork magic

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 Delete. Keep commenters below appear unfamiliar with appropriate WP guidelines and policy, as their arguments fall under WP:ILIKEIT. Deletion commenters base their suggestion in sound policy-oriented reasoning. Xoloz 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zork magic

Zork magic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:CVG article criteria. Guideline reads : If information is only of note to someone who plays the game, then it probably isn't worthy. Oscarthecat 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like a game guide, no real assertion of outward notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have to point out that WP:CVG isn't a Wikipedia policy or guideline and I do not agree with the criteria given. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a game guide is, and this appears to be a violation of that policy. I love all of the old Infocom games, but this information is trivial. -Chunky Rice 20:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and keep' Rename to List of Zork spells. It's not a game guide, it's a collection of all the spells of all the Zork series. Zork series has developed a whole fictional universe containing its own spells, days, months, and much more. This article is part of Encyclopedia Frobozzica, a fictitious encyclopedia in the Zork universe. -- Magioladitis 22:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of fictional spells in a fictional encyclopedia doesn't make it notable. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Oscarthecat 06:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep -- For the same reasons as above. --Mike Schiraldi 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete — Wikipedia is not a game guide. Zouavman Le Zouave 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with reasons above. Questionable notability as well. Dincher 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- I ran across this page because I was looking specifically for this information--and I'm not currently playing any Zork game. As Magioladitis said, this is a significant part of the Zork universe; it's not of interest only to people playing the game. So much for WP:CVG and Wikipedia is not a game guide. On the other hand...while I don't think either of those two guidelines apply, I admit I find it a little hard to defend on the terms on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). While the Zork universe is certainly notable, I don't know that I could make a particularly strong case that this particular bit of information about the Zork universe is itself sufficiently independently attested in reliable secondary sources to merit its own article. (And while I was specifically looking for this information, it turns out there are other places it's also available (such as here), so it's not particularly important that it's included in the Wikipedia--and even if that weren't the case, I realize that the fact that someone might be interested in this information isn't itself sufficient reason for its inclusion.) On balance, I think this information is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia--hence my "Keep" vote--but I don't feel all that strongly about it, and I can see some good arguments against it, which is why I'm only voting a weak Keep. --Smeazel 20:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (Oops, and yes, I realize this isn't really a "vote"; I shouldn't have used that word. Sorry for the bad terminology.)--Smeazel 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounding like a good candidate for movement to a gaming wiki.--Oscarthecat 20:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Such as? What gaming wikis exist that would contain this kind of information? (I don't mean that sarcastically; that's an honest question.)
      The thing is, contrary to your initially stated criterion about "information...only of note to someone who plays the game", this is precisely the kind of stuff that would be completely useless to someone actually playing the game. Each one of the games that use these spells contains only a handful of them, and they're all clearly explained within the game; a full list of all the Zork spells appearing in all the games would serve no purpose to someone playing one of the games except to confuse them. It's actually of interest pretty much only as information about the Zork universe, and wouldn't be of any help as a game guide at all.
      None of which, of course, has any bearing on the article's passing muster according to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and I stand by what I originally said about that--I think this is notable enough to pass, but I admit it's borderline, and don't feel too strongly about it. (If it has any bearing on the matter as far as real-world references, however, I could mention for what it's worth that five of the spells have game interpreters named after them, and one a data package format.)
      (Though, returning to the subject of the gaming wiki--as I said, that question was intended seriously; I am honestly curious if there are any gaming wikis that would contain this kind of information.)
      Sorry for leaving such a long comment.--Smeazel 06:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi - with regard to which gaming wiki, I'm thinking of IFWiki the Interactive Fiction Wiki. It already has a section on gaming spells in general, see here. --Oscarthecat 06:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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.