Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gl-117

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. NW (Talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gl-117

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game has not received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, so does not meet the guideline for notability. I am aware of its presence on happypenguin.org, sourceforge, etc, but these entries do not qualify for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. Miami33139 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable in being one of the only (if not the only) combat flight simulator for linux, also has coverage here--UltraMagnus (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This feels like WP:Advertising material and is happypengunin really a reliable website to cite? --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the Happypenguin directory entry is generated through user submissions, it can't be considered independent or reliable. I also don't buy the "one of the only..." argument: What if I were to make another Linux Tron light cycle game? There's only one other to my knowledge. Does that get me a WP article? No. Marasmusine (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do the interwikis count for anything? --Mokhov (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately their references: [1][2][3][4][5] are not reliable sources (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I meant the mere presence of the interwikis (assuming the interwiki articles are not complete garbage in themselves) --Mokhov (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please userfy to me as a subpage if deleted. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper strong delete. Interwikis should not be cited as sources, ever. JBsupreme (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far nobody cited interwikis as sources. --Mokhov (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Source Forge's very reliable download stats, and older version of this software received 86,763 downloads on Fri Jun 25 2004. So at least that many people have seen it. Sounds notable enough for me. Wikipedia isn't running out of space, and if you don't like it, you aren't going to find it anyway, unless you just like searching for things you dislike and wish to destroy. No general vote has ever been done on guidelines, so I just ignore them as the policy ignore all rules says to do, and use common sense. Dream Focus 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOLOLOL. Did you just say, and I'm paraphrasing, "Keep due to download statistics, and IAR"??? Really????? Come on now. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think I am going to side up with DreamFocus on this for the mentioned reasons. (I still hold on to my comment above.) --Mokhov (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Does not even come close to notability as the single reliable source (about.com) is a lightweight. There is no material to build an article with, and no need for WP to replicate a thousand software databases by providing a couple of lines of text about GL-117. Someone another 21:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.