Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petals Around the Rose


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 16:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Petals Around the Rose

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Expired PROD, recently undeleted. The notability issue which prompted the PROD has not been addressed. Nominating for deletion to start discussion on whether the article meets WP:GNG -- Patchy1  08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG John F. Lewis (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Noted in at least one reliable source from 1977. I've not yet done a further search for other sources. -- Trevj (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley   Huntley  00:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep People simply aren't looking very hard for sources; a Google book search gives plenty of hits. The problem seems to be that people editing the article are dancing around using good sources because if they did, the trick would be exposed. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've totally rewritten the article with better citations. Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more that people are spending so much time and effort for six years concentrating upon writing an unencyclopaedic encyclopaedia article, that they've not expended much on writing properly and providing references. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mangoe's cited sources are not the only ones to be found that directly discuss this game. I found a range of things, from classroom guides for teachers explaining how to use the game as a teaching aid to computer programs from the 1980s in BASIC.  There's not a lot to say about this game, it being a fairly simple one, but it does appear to be documented by the world at large. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2012 (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.