Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection


 * 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. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to comply with the notability guideline. Those arguing to keep unfortunately do not address this primary reason for deletion - simply being well known in puzzle circles does not make for a verifiable and appropriate encyclopedia article in itself. ~ mazca  talk 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not fair there was no consensus for delete and please don't use 'notability' as a rule for censorship ...   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.38.142.245 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod expired last year after being multiply endorsed and article was deleted. Article was restored because someone complained. No notability is established for this software. Needs multiple instances of independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage demonstrating enough notability for an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have many of these games, I very much appreciate Tatham's work in making them and in making them available, and I have to concur. Delete. DS 19:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am also a big fan of the software that Tatham has written but there is no way that this satisfies WP:N.  There are no sources (save the actual website) and I do not see enough comping in to satisfy WP:RS. meshach (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (or merge with the author article). I was the first contributor of the article ( so called 'creator' but in fact it was just few lines about it ). DreamGuy tagged it for advertisement first ( see history ) and the link from Simon Tatham self article was removed also. This sub-article was made to help readers not for spamming. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. It is part of Unix and Debian ... "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability... just use your favorite search engine ... Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. It is popular on many platforms....I'm am not linked to the author... some others say it is a genius ^^. I just think about subculture and i mean little articles like this about (minor) things is what could make wikipedia stronger but if you want just throw it away! I don't care really just going back to anon Bye +2P(eace) ;-) --Neuromancien (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless external references can be found. I'm a puzzle guy and a programmer and I've never heard of it (not alone a reason, I know). It appears to be a good collection but not groundbreaking. I also question Simon Tatham's article. If every programmer who released open source software had a page on Wikipedia, we'd have millions of programmer pages. What makes him notable? Not being a Unix or Linux user, I've never heard of Tatham's Netwide Assembler. Is it really widely known? And PuTTY seems to be an one of many terminal emulators for Windows -- and this one's only in beta. RoyLeban (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well known in open source and handheld puzzling circles.  When looking for media sources, don't forget to include coverage of the OS X iPhone version under the name PuzzleManiak.  Here's an example review .  I'm sure I've also seen coverage of individual puzzles which doesn't include the phrase "Simon Tatham's Portable Puzzle Collection", so these may also slip under the google-radar. --Linton (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 21 July 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.