Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chromium B.S.U.

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chromium B.S.U.[edit]

This has twice been prodded and restored, and I deleted it as G11 but I noticed afterwards that someone seems to beworking on it so I'm sending it here instead. It has never, I think, had any input fomr anyone with significant edits to any other article, and is written as a puff piece with sections such as "This game was designed to be played about fifty minutes, which is perfect to make a pause while working" and "Warning: one interesting aspect of the game is to guess the rules, so be warned that you will loose this aspect if you read this paragraph. The player can shoot ennemies with the left clic, when an ennemy bypass the player the player loose one of his ships. There are three ships at the beginning, the player may get more ships during the game. Other capacities may be won either."

That's (badly-spelled) game guide stuff. And a spoiler warning. And that some of the better content here. There are no independent sources cited. So, maybe it can be completely rewritten to make a decent article, but I don't think this qualifies. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has potential, if its being worked on, hold off for a few days to see what comes of it. I may even step in myself tomorrow and see what I can do. Renominate in a couple of weeks if it is still lacking whatever it needs. A bit of good faith should be shown here I feel. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- I did some digging for sources and, apart from download sites, this is the best I could find: [1], [2] and I don't think those will cut it. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe Chromium used to be included in the default distribution of Fedora Core 2, so it does have some prominence. I'm not sure what standard is applied to open-source games though, so I'll let other people decide about that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chromium has been included in all major Linux distributions (Slackware, RedHat, Debian, Mandriva,...) for a long time. Chris Neville-Smith says it all: like most open-source games, it is not pushed by any commercial company and you can't reasonably expect mainstream computer magazines to write a review about it. Nonetheless, it is a well written game (general opinion, despite it doesn't really count here), among the best that were available (POV again, I know) on Linux platforms 9 years ago, and for this reason I think we should leave a chance for this article to exist and grow in quality. I'm quite confident there exists articles about it in past issues of open-source specialized magazines. — Xavier, 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 00:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until it's properly referenced. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Albeit still far from perfect, the article has been substantially improved today and seems promising. May we have the pleasure of your support for a keep? — Xavier, 19:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know the content I have put is of bad quality, but I did though because often it is easier to correct than to start from nothing. I understand that this article was proposed for deletion, but I think a freesoftware can not be judged on the same criterias than commercial games, Chromium is widely known in the free software community and could be considered as part of its culture. But I don't know how this could be reflected in the article. Blue Prawn (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough references to warrant keeping the article now, although it could do with some background information outside of the gameplay. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:20, 29 March 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.