Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slowrun

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 September 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slowrun

No reliable sources to assert notability, seems to be solely original research Sceptre ^(talk) 13:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- WilliamH (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Frag references do not assert notability, no evidence of reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely not speedy, the article is well written, structured, and articulated. Although keeping Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS#Google_test in mind, the term slowrun receives 2000 hits on Google alone. There are many slowruns available on Youtube and even a Slowrun Archives of slowruns already referenced in the article itself. Also, no significant discussion or attempt to improve the article has yet been underway. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games, of which I am a member and of which this article is a part of, has not even had the chance to properly peeer review this article and determine what needs to be done to improve it. I believe it should be kept and given a chance to be reviewed and enhanced more seriously by project members. As of now the article is coherent, referenced, and most of all, has potential. --Banime (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I've never heard of this term before, and most of the sources used in the article are from slowrunarchives.googlepages.com, YouTube videos of these slowruns, or have nothing to do with verifying the subject. That being said, it sounds like this concept has a niche of gamers dedicated to doing these "slowruns," and so perhaps it should be documented somewhere. Unless more verifiable sources can be found to prove that this is a very noteworthy topic, I would suggest putting this topic into a new section of the speedrun article, since they seem to be related (they are simply the opposite of each other). — OranL (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the references are "good" ones (third-party sources which discuss the subject). Should be a small section in speedrun, if anything. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't even merge this. This article baffles me. It reads like a joke. "Players must also be well versed in every function of the game, specifically the pause function"—really? Hit the pause button to take longer, how "well versed" can we get here? I can't find third-party sources to show notability, and I'd be incredibly surprised if any were made in the future, outside of "Weird stuff on the web vol.47"-type articles. Sorry for getting into this in an AFD, but I'm very confused by this whole thing. Pagra shtak 00:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I would have gone with merging this into Speedrun if that article wasn't already massive. I believe that sources to assert notability could be found but they might be difficult to find. The article could do with a cleanup. Just because we don't have sources asserting notability, doesn't mean there aren't any. I work in the gamedev industry and this term has come up from time to time. I recall there being an article or mention about this in "The Escapist" or even on Gameasutra, but can't find it. Icemotoboy (talk) 01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Agreeing with Icomotoboy, I think it should be deleted as compared to merging with Speedrun, judging by the sheer size of the article. MuZemike (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:WEB. The references provided are non-sources, just arbitrary videos taken from YouTube. The entire article is just somebody's essay, full of OR and how-to guides based on the OR. At best, redirect this page to Speedrun and include a short paragraph there. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be an elaborately constructed hoax and/or joke article. Nifboy (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear lack of notability (which is different than familiarity, popularity, etc.). Established editors should not have to wonder if the subject of an article is a hoax. JohnnyMrNinja 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the NEO, OR and RS issues raised above. Eusebeus (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Banime. Mathmo ^Talk 05:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty hard-core original research. There's basically nothing in the way of referenced claims (or referenceable claims) here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:07, 17 July 2008 (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.