Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teeworlds

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. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teeworlds[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Notability/sources cleanup tags have remained dormant on the article since June 2008. The article has no references to independent third-party sources, save a single review on a rather amateurish blog. Psychonaut (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I admit it is a great game, it isn't notable. Quickly looked for sources, but only found a few forum posts. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As found by clicking on "Scholar" above, this is discussed in “Usability heuristics for networked multiplayer games”, written by David Pinelle (National Research Council, Fredericton, NB, Canada), Nelson Wong (University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada), Tadeusz Stach (Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada), and Carl Gutwin (University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada), published in “Proceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work”. Samboy (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to broader topic - Here is the full text of the paper. Coverage is one paragraph describing the multiplayer usability of the game. Verifiable, but not particularly significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. The source cited by Samboy does not establish notability for the game, and nothing else has turned up. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2010 (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.