Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vega Strike


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Vega Strike

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Game has been around for more than a decade but it only has one review (an Italian website). There are some interviews with the dev, but there isn't enough coverage of the game to write a dedicated article. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.) (?) It had nothing more than passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. It would be fine by me to restore the redirect to List of open source games. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please ping me. czar 23:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  23:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - the game is notable among open-source video games, has been actively developed since last century, is included in all major Linux distributions and while the article was previously lacking sources a bit, I provided several secondary sources now (although one has already been deleted as supposedly "not reliable", even though it has a lengthy article on Wikipedia... maybe this is how articles end up without sources). I'm not entirely sure whether the fact the review being mentioned is on an Italian website is meant to be a problem, but for the record, it's one of the best-known computer websites in Italy and it has non-stub articles on both the Italian and the English Wikipedia. A few of the other references are also not really as "in passing" as the nominator would make you think - I recommend reading them. LjL (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A website with a WP page does not mean that said site has any hallmarks of editorial control or journalistic integrity. There's also an article on Reddit. Let me know if you find reviews in more than that one Italian site. czar  23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean the opposite, either, but I guess you are the arbiter of editorial control and journalistic integrity... having complete articles on Wikipedia is at the very least an indicator of notability, and if you dispute the sources' integrity, then bring it to the sources noticeboard, don't just start an AfD. By the way, you seem to have forgotten to mention the review by the Free Software Magazine, which was already provided in the article before my edits, unless I can't see right. LjL (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's another review in another Italian site as you seemed to want, anyway, although I'm much less familiar with this site (maybe because it's Apple-centered and I'm really not) than with Punto Informatico.
 * Your sarcasm is noted and unappreciated. The Apple Lounge is very clearly a blog without editorial oversight. WP's guideline on what constitutes a reliable source says that, as an encyclopedia, we use sources that have fact-checking and editorial policies. I wouldn't call FSM a reputable outlet either, especially back then. It's totally normal to take an article to AfD when you can't find sufficient sourcing. The game's received zero coverage from major reviewers. Unless it's some kind of cult hit with reams of underground sourcing, it doesn't have enough material for us to write a full article about it. This isn't news—you're the one who tagged it for lacking sources back in 2009. czar  03:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My sarcasm? I thought it was your sarcasm. Anyway, your high standards for sources would seem to basically exclude independent games (and especially open source ones that "big" publications won't have commercial incentive to review) from appearing on Wikipedia, but maybe that's what you want: an encyclopedia that very strictly adheres to narrow interpretation of policies but at the detriment of useful content. --LjL (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not responding to any more ad hominems in this thread. I've written dozens of GA-rated articles on indie games. There are many video game hobbyist websites, which is why WP:VG/RS exists to vet them. It's fine to include this game in a list of open source games because it is known as one, but I don't see enough coverage for us to write a full article about it from reliable, secondary sources. czar  12:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Some sourcing available. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 01:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been mentioned in a reliable sources discussion about a source that is being considered unacceptable in the article by the nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LjL (talk • contribs) 14:35, 12 October 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Keep, the referencing seems sufficient to sustain an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, sourcing is weak but just sufficient. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:51, 12 October 2015 (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.