Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solarwolf


 * 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. John254 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Solarwolf

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable self-released freeware video game. No substantial coverage in reliable sources. Google search only comes up with file download sites and no criticism or analysis. Chardish (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I described on the Solarwolf talk page:

On 01:54, 8 December 2007 user "Chardish" marked the article with "It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern: Non-notable video game. Fails verifiability." TEG went through the same thing: Articles_for_deletion/Tenes_Empanadas_Graciela. I'll quote from there: "without going into depth of what constitutes notability in FLOSS apps, this app appears in various Linux distro listings". The same is true for Solarwolf:

etc.
 * Debian
 * Ubuntu (universe repository)
 * Fedora

Also...

Marcel's Linux Game of the Month (June 2006) article from UnixReview.com

Linux Game Tome entry

Thus, notable enough. -- Limulus (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am a bit disturbed that Chardish ignored my comments there and immediately moved to have the page removed rather than specifically discussing the links. IMHO if its in Ubuntu's repositories, that alone makes it notable as a Linux game.  Also, please note that Solarwolf is not "freeware" but rather "free software" in the libre sense (there is a big difference!  The free software article states "freeware is proprietary software made available free of charge. One can use, but not study, modify or redistribute freeware.")  Solarwolf is (somewhat unusually) released under the "GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1" -- Limulus (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC) So... KEEP :) -- Limulus (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ubuntu's repositories contain literally thousands of programs, not all of which are notable. Thus inclusion there cannot confer notability. Furthermore, UnixReview.com is not a reliable source, and the Linux Game Tome is self-published, harming its reliability. I've seen other articles deleted about topics of greater claimed notability than this pet project. - Chardish (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Ubuntu's repositories contain thousands of programs, but their inclusion in the Ubuntu project means that they have some sort of importance. It is perhaps your *opinion* that some are not notable, but it is mine that if they are there, they are.  Your attitude towards this article is very condescending BTW ("I've seen other articles deleted about topics of greater claimed notability than this pet project.")  I assume this is because of your self-description as a "deletionist".  Personally I consider you a censor, the kind if left unchecked will gut Wikipedia by deleting perfectly good articles and stubs rather than expending the effort required to fix them; what's worse is that your mischief is far more difficult to control than the vandals'; you think that what you're doing is the right thing to do... -- Limulus (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the second time that you've attacked my personal behavior instead of discussing the merits of this article. Stop, immediately. - Chardish (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (Second?) Listen, I tried to address your concerns on the talk page ("rv; yes, it is notable enough (sigh) please see talk page."), but rather that responding, you immediately moved to have the page deleted.  I replied here too and your only counter-argument was "I've seen other articles deleted about topics of greater claimed notability than this pet project." which really says nothing other than a vague appeal to authority.  Suggestion: please directly respond to the criticisms of your initial listing of the Solarwolf article here:


 * "freeware": no, not freeware; its software libre under the LGPL. Do you have an idea of how rare good software libre games are? (they really are few and far between ):
 * "Google search only comes up with file download sites": Do you consider the inclusion of Solarwolf in various Linux distributions to count only as "file download sites"? At what point does a Linux game become notable?
 * "and no criticism or analysis.": I provided a link to unixreview.com (which I found by Google, BTW). You said that it "is not a reliable source".  Based on what?  I did a quick search and UnixReview is referenced as a source by the following articles: Streamtuner, Samizdat (book), Ayttm, AlphaWindows.  UnixReview has articles going back to the beginning of 2000, so its not like they're new. Also, note the logo in the upper left hand corner of the UnixReview.com site; its part of United Business Media, apparently a MAJOR UK-based media corp that's almost 90 years old. (update: I note via  that Unix Review was at least at one point an actual print publication: "UNIX Review is a monthly magazine that covers the latest in UNIX technologies. It contains useful information for both UNIX developers and administrators. The magazine covers many aspects of UNIX-based systems, including software, hardware, peripherals, and support services."  -- Limulus (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC))  This is "not a reliable source"?  "Someone another" provided one to gamespy.com  Are you saying that's not reliable too?  If so, what sort of publication are you looking for then?


 * -- Limulus (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The threshold of inclusion is having enough reliable, secondary sources to write a neutral article. See WP:N, and WP:V.  --Phirazo 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Phirazo, your comment above is a common misconception, as you connect two related, but not to this extent, parts of Wikipedia policy. The following is true (rephrased):
 * The threshold of inclusion is having been covered by reliable secondary sources
 * Information in Wikipedia should be verifiable.
 * The connection you make between the two does not exist. What happens often, especially in the area of WP:VG, is that some subjects are notable by virtue of coverage in secondary sources (say, Gamespot), and then primary sources such as the game's manual and the official website are used as sources in the article. This practice is allowed per WP:SELFPUB. By way of summary, in order to be notable, the coverage of a subject in secondary sources does not have to extend so far as to be able to source the whole article. It needs to extend far enough to provide notability. User:Krator (t c) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've always thought all the content policies dovetail into each other. A subject needs to be notable and verifiable to have an article in Wikipedia.  --Phirazo 03:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True. It is just not notable in order to be verifiable. User:Krator (t c) 14:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Convinced by Limulus of the notability of the subject. User:Krator (t c) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not convinced that being distributed in linux dists. is helpful, at all, in either establishing notability or actually giving something to write about. Linux game tome does nothing apart from list a few details, it gives no critical analysis and again isn't a source which establishes any notability. However the Unix Review link found by Limulus looks dandy, and I'll match it with this GameSpy article, snap! Someone another (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears in Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora - and probably other *n?x dists. Marcel Gagné endorsement is Automatic Notability in my book. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep - game has established minimal notability. Cackalackakilla (talk) 21:07, 10 December 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.