Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LordsAWar!


 * 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, without prejudice to anyone recreating the title as a redirect only. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

LordsAWar!

 * – ( View AfD View log )

non WP:notable open source game - external links to directory listings, other wikis but nothing to establish notability. Disputed Prod. noq (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is common to all articles about opensource TBS. See The Battle for Wesnoth and freeciv for example, keeping in mind that thay are developped far longer then LordsAWar! The opensource TBS don't get reviewed, rated by official bodies and listed on gamers' resources. Google search gives 55,800 results, which outnumbers some games in Open source video games (not to mention others from List of open-source video games). At the same time, LordsAWar! is important in Warlords (game series), as the others are dead. --Czarkoff (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a problem because Wikipedia requires independent sources. The raw hit counts on google are less if you include the exclamation and fewer still if you add -wikipedia. With 100 hits/page google stops showing anything after 544 entries. noq (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The best external references of an opensource software is package repositaries. If this game wasn't notable, it wouldn't make it to Ubuntu (since 7.10), Debian (since Squeeze), Fedora (since FC11) Mandrive (since 9.2, still as freelords), Archlinux AUR (since 30 Oct 2008) and some less noteable Linux distributions (and to FreeBSD ports (since Feb 21 2008) too!). Notice no single exclamation sign! --Czarkoff (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Also one can notice a lot of different sites mentioning LordsAWar in Google Image search. --Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is required is significant coverage in WP:reliable sources - mentioning it in passing is not significant coverage. Directories, download sites etc are not considered reliable sources for the purpose od establishing WP:notability. I have not seen anything that makes an exception for open source software. noq (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - It doesn't matter how many distributions its in - if there's no actual coverage anywhere there is nothing to write about. I did find a trivial mention at Linux Magazine, so no objection to redirecting to List of open-source video games with this citation. Marasmusine (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete even the creator acknowledges this doesn't have substantial coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to me that this article (in finished form, not as is) is consistent with goals of Wikipedia - it informs Warlords community-disconnected fans of the possibilty to enjoy the game again. But I must admit the lack of so cold reliable sources, so, as it is seen as unavoidable, I would prefer this page redirecting to Warlords (game series) instead of List of open-source video games. --Czarkoff (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection to your proposed redirection target. An aside: "so cold" is a charming mondegreen. Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2011 (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.