Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIRST Games
- 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sunfoo (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
FIRST Games
[edit]- FIRST Frenzy: Raising the Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2006 FIRST Robotics Competition season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2007 FIRST Robotics Competition season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles do not pass the general notability guideline. They lack independent, reliable sources to prove notability. Sunfoo (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- At this time, I withdraw this request. Sunfoo (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of coverage is just one of the problems to merit deleting these articles. If we write an article on an amateur written computer program, it certainly would not survive a deletion nom, let alone a game a wrote in school. A review of FIRST Robotics explicitly implies these are created by amateur programmers. Redirecting sounds like a good compromise, but that would require every game get a redirect. The best I can do for this content is list all these games on the FIRST Robotics article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all I just picked one of these randomly, recycle rush, and found [1] a ton of sources. Most are coverage of "local teams", with only minor coverage of the topic itself, but others such as [2] are solely about the topic and cover it in reasonable detail. Recall we don't delete articles because they don't have sources that count toward WP:N in the article, rather we do so because there are no such sources. That is not the case here. Hobit (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree that Recycle Rush should be kept, but I still have not found good sources for most of the others. Sunfoo (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't you withdraw this nomination, follow WP:BEFORE, and then nominate for deletion only those that you think should be nominated. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Will do. Sunfoo (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Why don't you withdraw this nomination, follow WP:BEFORE, and then nominate for deletion only those that you think should be nominated. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree that Recycle Rush should be kept, but I still have not found good sources for most of the others. Sunfoo (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2016 (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.