Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warsow (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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warsow (game)[edit]

Non-notable freeware beta video game. No reliable secondary sources (don't make the game or offer it for download), no significant coverage. Some people play it, which means it might be popular, but that doesn't mean it is notable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC) ~ JohnnyMrNinja 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's quite a good atricle. Just needs some cleanup. TopGearFreak ^Talk 13:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a decent article, and it is probably even a good game. But please read WP:NN, these things have no bearing on whether it should be here. Similarly, a badly-written article on Elton John should be kept because he is notable. The content of the article can change easily, the subject is the point to focus on. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of a distinct lack of independent sources. There's plenty of primary ones, but those can only be used to prove that what's in the article is accurate, not that it is notable. Reyk _YO! 19:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Warsow was featured on Good Game as one of the best free games available. See reference provided ([[1]]). PaulWay (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC) In addition, Reyk is completely wrong at this point as there are several references from e.g. German TV programs, thus providing both notability and independent reference.[reply]
Sorry, but what references? This one? Good Game did mention it, does that qualify as significant coverage? I think it qualifies as mentioned once. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went back through all the sources listed in the article again, and there's nothing substantial. There is no trace of the coverage in German TV shows that you claimed. The only source of the seventeen provided that's good for anything is the Good Game review, but I do not think that alone is sufficient to establish notability. Reyk _YO! 20:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. You might want to go over the other references yourself, since several links are broken or (like the one JohnnyMrNinja pointed out) don't seem to say anything at all. Reyk _YO! 20:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there may be little in the way of verifable sources on the article at present, the subject and the interest there appears to be for the game indicates that there should be sources out there - we just haven't found them yet. The answer is to work harder on the article. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The Good Game coverage is semi-substantial; not enough on its own but acceptable in conjuction with other good sources. For me it all rather hinges on the significance of the GIGA TV channel appearances; the article says the game was "featured", but considering the other (slight) NPOV slips, I have to wonder. If that contributor could explain a bit further on the nature of this coverage (and provide a full {cite episode}), that might help. Marasmusine (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Independent media coverage of free software is rare because it doesn't generate advertising $$$. Hence I'd regard the favourable coverage in The Best Free Games Around as worth 2-3 reviews of commercial games. --Philcha (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it generated money it might be notable, but I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't confirm that. Notability is a flat-tax. There's no rule that says notability is lessened for those too poor to achieve it. Are you suggesting that hummingbirds generate advertising revenue? Or centaurs? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Period (full-stop, if you prefer). ~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is suggesting that he believes the provided references do constitute "significant coverage". Whereas you are suggesting that the coverage is not sufficient. The suggestion is, and I agree, that there is sufficient coverage for me to be satisfied that this game is notable. However, the article needs some work. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 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.