Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hedgewars (video game)

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. Sandstein 09:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgewars (video game)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, as most sources are not independent or passing mentions. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, indeed does not appear to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree with nom and Zxcvbnm. Though, I added another ref from Game Pressure/Gry Online, RS per WP:VG/RS, seems to be a decent review that is just SIGCOV. Wikimpan found another seemingly RS ref, but it's listed under news and leans on the shorter side for SIGCOV. The Softpedia one also is just situational on WP:VG/RS. With 1 ref that IMHO is decent in SIGCOV, and the other one being slightly worse, IMO whether the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT is borderline. Update: There are several good refs provided below. This might not be SIGCOV but is from a well-known newspaper, as well as this one. Might not be RS or SIGCOV for video games, though I'd like to change my vote from a weak delete to neutral. VickKiang (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was unable to find any significant coverage in magazines in Archive.org; the majority of what I found is rather brief, and largely discusses game mechanics rather than giving a review. Here's what I found: "Non-webgame of the month" in PC Zone, brief review in Linux For You, brief coverage in Linux Journal, coverage in two lists of freeware games in PC Professionale (here and here), and #7 in a list of "The 10 best free software games" from Linux Voice. The strongest source seems to be the Gry Online review added by VickKiang - the Softpedia review reads as rather promotional to me and doesn't seem like a reliable review. I also found a research paper titled "Gender Differences in Emotional Responses to Cooperative and Competitive Game Play" that used the game as part of the study. Waxworker (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article is not different from large portion of List of open-source video games. For a non-AAA title made after 2000, that was not a subject of short-lived fame on reddit and does not put much effort into promotion, it’s virtually impossible to have more than one or two mentions. Given the sheer numer of software produced and games counted in 5- or 6-digit figures, being noticed at all already puts a title among the important entries. In particular if we’re talking about an open source game, which is by itself a niche genre. And within this particular genre, Hedgewars is a mature product with a long history, mentioned in computer magazines (Komputer Świat, 2008, Encyklopedia Gier Gry-Online, 2006), with half of or the same popularity as titles considered “major” among FOSS games (Wesnoth, 0AD, Warzone2100, Widelands, Freecol, Hedgewars). Hardly not a notable entry: or most of the aforementioned list would need to face deletion. I am all against placing just any thing in Wikipedia, as it’s not a place to promote random products, but Hedgewars clearly has its stable place in FOSS community and has been noticed outside of it, in multiple contexts. -- wikimpan (Talk) 07:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are impressive finds, and Komputer Swiat is apparently RS on WP:VG/RS despite the review being a bit short and might not meet SIGCOV. The following popularity isn't relevant to notability, IMHO, and the argument is like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for [hardly] not a notable entry: or most of the aforementioned list would need to face deletion, but this is still a good find! VickKiang (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - it would be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if not the entire paragraph precending it. To rephrase and make the point clearer: coverage considered sufficient for considering a subject notable must take context into account. A low probability binomial distribution, being limited to discrete values, with low sample size must produce noise with values from {0, 1} set and some outliers reaching outside that. The mention of other articles in the genre serves as an example of that. We can’t expect a FOSS game to have the same media coverage as JFK assassination. -- wikimpan (Talk) 01:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'd like to clarify that I'm just saying that popularity isn't synonymous with notability and fame, which we already know. There are a few maybe good refs, but if they are RS is subject to debate. On [we] can’t expect a FOSS game to have the same media coverage as JFK assassination, I write a couple of articles on obscure board games, and of course they won't have loads of coverage. IMHO, a sensible bar is two or more in-depth, independent, reliable refs, note I've also changed my ! vote to neutral, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other sources (all Czech): [1] (Bonusweb magazine on idnes.cz; major Czech news portal/online version of the MF Dnes newspaper), [2] (lidovky.cz; online version of the Lidove noviny newspaper), [3] (root.cz)

Seeing availability of sources like this I'm leaning to keep (in my POV, only reason for deletion seems to be a lack of an Amiga port). Pavlor (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete there aren't any truly reliable sources that are also significant. If someone could find something truly solid it's possible this could be rescued. Jontesta (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I appreciate the discussion and assessment of sources but I'm reading it as Weak Keeps and Weak Deletes that might result in a No Consensus outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t appear to meet GNG. Creamjuice (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the sources I provided above (eg. via Google translate)? Pavlor (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why I even bother to ask, that fellow editor is a blocked sock. Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Many of the refs on this article are primary sources, some even being download links for the game in question. In short, not reliable. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about the refs provided in this very AfD? Pavlor (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2022 (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.