Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boss (video games)

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 per consensus. Nom withdrawn. PeaceNT 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boss (video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nothing but original research. Several of the claims may be unverifiable. While Wikipedia may want an article on this topic, this is not that article. Chardish 17:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and fix The article needs sources for some of the claims, but is otherwise sound. DarkAudit 17:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fix as per DarkAudit. Dalejenkins 17:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup very important game-design aspect which could (and should) certainly have a decent article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — This article may need references, but it is non-notable as I've found only 603 hits on Yahoo! search and 343 on Ask Jeeves in addition to having a certain POV. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup: Reference and remove POVs from the article. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a person or a group. Notability is not at issue here. DarkAudit 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Google searches do not assert or disprove notablility. DBZROCKS 22:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I already attempted to do some minor cleanup before, and commented out / removed some of the more egregious OR. That said, it is not all OR; the fact that bosses exist and general design items is not OR at all. AfD is not cleanup; if you admit that "Wikipedia wants an article on this topic," then something is better than nothing. It's not like what is there is libelous or anything. SnowFire 21:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this is rediculus, bosses are a highly important aspect of video games. The only part I think is the problem is the critisism part, there is no reason to delete this at all. DBZROCKS 22:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and cleanup - boss characters are a vital component in the vast majority of retro video games, maybe still nowadays. The problems tagged on that page should be sorted out, but the notability of the subject is more than sufficient enough to guarantee the article a place in Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix --Exarion 02:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep "While Wikipedia may want an article on this topic, this is not that article." AfD is not cleanup. Maxamegalon2000 05:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup the heck out of the article. Yes, the article has crap that's probably OR. It has problems with attribution in general because there's no good easily accessible sources for gaming topics - you know, works that define gaming concepts. Our policies don't work in this situation; this is clearly a notable topic in video gaming context, we have to stick in some definition there (and if someone mentions "no information is preferred to unsourced information", I promise I get mighty cranky). Picking a definition of a boss from a reliable source is difficult, and there's probably few bits of research explaining them; all researchers seem to assume everyone knows what a boss in video games mean. You can throw these articles at AfD all day long and I guess the only result you can get out of these is that "this is a notable topic, we need an article about this, but getting the sources is difficult". So I advise everyone who tries to throw more of this stuff to AfD to just stick in the OR and source cleanup tags and let it sit. The issue is with the sourcing, not on whether we need the article or not. Unsourced material can live in article history and thus this is not a matter that warrants deletion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Useight 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up. As a non-video-game player interested in game theory, I found this interesting and informative but, as has been mentioned, unreferenced (although I can understand that there would be few articles available on material like this). Accounting4Taste 20:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know if this is possible at this point, but I would like to withdraw my nomination due to obvious consensus to keep. I still, however, believe that this article needs serious cleanup, if not a complete rewrite from sources. - Chardish 23:31, 14 May 2007 (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.