Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's play


 * 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. The consensus here is that there is insufficient reliable coverage for notability. The encyclopaedia cannot responsibly include articles whose content is substantially unverifiable; should anyone want to include this content on another wiki of a different scope, please feel free to ask. Skomorokh, barbarian  02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Let&

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is extensive but it has no actual sources about LPs itself, only links to forums and lists of LPs. Technically this would fall under the A7 speedy deletion criterion due to lack of sources asserting notability, but I'm not entirely sure that they couldn't be found in this case. Veinor (talk to me) 13:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or possibly a merge somewhere. The forums indicate there are possibly references available,and even the nominator says there might be. Did he even look?--I admit it's not an very obvious gsearch, but perhaps there are some hints to finding them in the forums--I particularly note  -- which might even be considered close to a RS. .  It would in no case have been an A7, not necessarily being web content--and I don't think A7 would apply to a class of web content in any case.   There are many other meanings of the phrase, so a qualifier is needed for the article title.    DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * as possibly relevant sources I list from Google books,  ,    DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we consider TVTropes a reliable source now? I thought we didn't consider any wikilike anything near a RS. The three books you mention are all programming books that have nothing to do with LPs. I did look and wasn't able to find anything via a gsearch; gnews turns up irrelevant results as well. Searching ("let's play" video game) reduces it to relevant stuff, but nothing that's anywhere near a reliable source. I'm not saying that I'm positiv eno source exists, only that any such source isn't immediately obvious. Veinor (talk to me) 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * a programming book on programming video games would be exactly the right type of source--it would discuss using this  technique. The closest I have found so far is, but the full text is not available to me immediately.    DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Technique? What do LPs have to do with programming beyond the fact that they can involve commentary on coding errors in a game? Veinor (talk to me) 00:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see any independent reliable sources that have discussed these presentations. Contrary to the above comments, "Let's plays" appear to be presented from the player's point of view, not the programmer's, so I wouldn't expect to find them covered in a book about programming video games. The phrase "let's play" is so common in the English language that I will have to leave it to the supporters of this article to find the sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is borderline notable, and the sources scarce. Taking a look at the possible sources DGG presented as compared to the article content...I would be very shocked. It doesn't take much more than even a second to realize that what the books are documenting and what the article are about are 2 mutually exclusive topics. If this were to be kept, I would probably suggest it being reduced to the stub status it recently had until some reliable sources can by found. (The stub status seems to have been reverted by some anons.) I would also probably heeding the advice of Neo in this case.--Toffile (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Let's Play scene is growing rapidly from its start just a year or two ago. Its significantly different from the old style speedruns which have their own article and a lot of well knock internet personalities such as Spoony and Linkara are doing them because of their growing popularity.  The term is obscure and people need a reliable source for information on what exactly a Let's Play is so they aren't left getting some slanted point of view from a private web site.  I was going to add this article until I saw someone had beat me to it and I WILL re-add it at some point in the future so we can all go through this again and again and again and again.  Sturmovik (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem is that there are no good sources for this article. If you can find them, it'll get kept. Veinor (talk to me) 05:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge I am part of a university gaming club and we often do "Let's Play"s at club meetings. I didn't know what they were at first and I think having a Wikipedia article or section on them is important for others seeking information. --Patrick Lucas (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has expanded from humble beginnings and has begun to accumulate sources, it shouldn't just be discarded because some people don't find it notable yet. BOARshevik (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is not so much that the topic is not notable, but that it isn't sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - an article cannot be built on information from forums and YouTube channels. It doesn't matter how popular Lets Plays are if no reliable publications have written about them. My own magazine search hasn't unearthed anything that can be used for verifiability, let alone notability (except for an unrelated game series by Deep Silver for the DS) Marasmusine (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no reliable sources for the subject, which is grounds for deletion according to policy. Remember that AfD is for discussing whether an article should be deleted according to Wikipedia's policies, and as such reasons like "We need an article about X!" and "I like it!" hold no weight here. If you can prove based on policy that the article merits inclusion more than deletion, that will be taken into consideration. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:25, 2 November 2009 (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.