Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLtron


 * 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 no consensus (default to keep). Ignoring a couple of "keep" recommendations that don't address relevant policies or guidelines, it seems that there might be enough reliable sources to make this article pass standards; no one contradicted QuagmireDog's find of sources, but, at the same time, there wasn't a strong affirmation that they would be enough. In any event, please expand and source the article appropriately. — TKD::Talk 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

GLtron

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Open-source free game based on Tron, makes absolutely no assertions of notability ~ JohnnyMrNinja  17:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Google search brings up lots of download sites, but not much meaningful comment, still less from reliable sources Iain99 18:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is well written and definitely should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameseyx (talk • contribs)
 * An article should be kept if the subject is notable, and removed if not, no matter how well written it is. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article could perhaps use a re-write. The criteria for games is substantially low. If games like Radar_Scope are kept, this should be as well. Ar-wiki 04:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A) WP:Othercrapexists. B) Criteria for games are the same for every other subject when it comes to notability and inclusion, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If other articles also fail to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion then they should also be removed, until such time as they are notable. C) A game that single-handedly brought down Nintendo's American division before anyone had heard of Nintendo is likely notable. A game who's lack of marketability led to the creation of a game called Donkey Kong (and the character "Jump Man", later known as Mario), which was simply designed to use the surplus of Radar Scope hardware lying around... this game seems notable to me (but irrelevant to this discussion). ~  JohnnyMrNinja  05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  05:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * week keep Google News turns up a few reliable, independent sources: archive search. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Can't really see anything in the Google News results that asserts the notability of the game, nor anything in the article itself.  Mi re ma re  17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment LinuxGames review, Mac Observer reviewQuagmireDog 19:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as both above sources cut reliable for me. QuagmireDog 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination from JohnnyMrNinja invokes WP:JNN with no evidence to back it up. Arguments for deletion from Iain99 & Miremare invokes WP:GOOGLEHITS without context (Do other games of a similar nature have substantially more "Google Hits"? Wouldn't the proliferation of download links signify notability, as opposed to a similar program that is available only at a few sites? What is a "reliable" or "independent" source?). However, brighterorange also invokes WP:GOOGLEHITS for the argument of keeping the article. JohnnyMrNinja correctly calls out Jameseyx's argument as WP:EFFORT & Ar-wiki's argument as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.


 * As far as I'm concerned, the argument for nomination is flawed because there is no evidence to corroborate the charge. Since there is no evidence to support the nomination of deletion & all subsequent arguments for deletion are within the realm of WP:GOOGLEHITS, my vote is Speedy Keep. -75.130.90.56 15:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)-


 * Comment WP:GOOGLEHITS wasn't invoked. I didn't say "there aren't many Google hits so delete it", and User:brighterorange didn't say "there are some Google hits so keep it". He said that in his opinion the search turned up some reliable sources. I commented that, in my opinion, the Google results didn't provide the required notability, which is also what User:Iain99 said. That coupled with the lack of sources in the article meant that notability was still, in my opinion, yet be proved. That was the reason I !voted delete. Someone mentioning Google is not a good enough reason to dismiss their arguments. Also claiming that the nomination is flawed because "there is no evidence to corroborate the charge" is a little odd. The "charge" is that the game is not notable; The "evidence" is that there are no sources in the article to show notability. Articles have to prove that they deserve to be on Wikipedia.  Mi re ma re  17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Your creative & narrow interpretation of WP:GOOGLEHITS is duly noted. However, you freely admit to using the search engine Google to gauge the notability of the article in question. By the definition of the Googlehits argument, Google is often viewed as an inaccurate measure of notability. Therefore, that argument is inadmissible.


 * Furthermore, you then cite that "Someone mentioning Google is not a good enough reason to dismiss their arguments." However, 2 people here (Iain99 & yourself) exclusively invoked Google as a basis for dismissal. So how can it be that Google can be used solely as a basis for dismissal but not as a basis for being kept?


 * It is up to the nominator to prove that their nomination is valid which did not occur in this case. Non-notable as compared to... Half-Life 2? Racing programs? Sci-Fi programs? Other freeware programs? Freeware programs for the Linux system? If you can not objectively compare notability from non-notability, what difference does the citation of sources matter?


 * How can an article prove that it is worthy of Wikipedia when such proof appears to be subjective in nature? For instance, the proof that Iain99 uses for the article's deletion (download sites are not "reliable" sources) may also be used as proof for its continued inclusion (download sites as "reliable" sources).


 * Until there is an objective method to determine notability, it can not be used as a method for deletion. The reasoning behind the nomination is invalid & the article, by definition, should not be deleted. Speedy Keep -75.130.90.56 19:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)-
 * We've been dealing with these kinds of issues for a long time and we do have plenty of answers to them. Just take a look at WP:N and WP:RS. I'd like to clarify, though, in that I'm not talking about Google hits at all... this is a search of Google news archives, which turn up results in reliable sources such as Computer Gaming World, Macworld, PC World, etc. I think that is enough to establish notability, but I guess my standards are lower than Miremare's. (Iain99 didn't address my find, and he was using a straight up web search, which is not a very good way to find RS, and definitely not a good way to show their absence.) &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User:75.130.90.56, I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. It appears to be something along the lines of "WP:GOOGLEHITS means that you can't use Google to find sources", in which case I'd suggest that your interpretation of it is somewhat more creative than mine. But I'd like to say that I did not and do not "freely admit to using the search engine Google to gauge the notability of the article in question". I was using the quality of the sources thrown up by Google/Google News, and the absense of sources in the article itself. If there's anything else I could use, I'm open to suggestions. Google is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion other than as a means to find sources.  Mi re ma re  21:59, 12 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.