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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ReCaged[edit]

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

Non-notable subject supported by primary sources only, searching brought up no usable material. Яehevkor ✉ 09:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) "rollcaged" and "rollcagex" did not have any hits in a video game reliable sources search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 18:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- game software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up forum posts and developers' sites, but no significant, independent RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm new to this situation, so please forgive me if my arguments are void. Like most small floss projects, there are few 3rd party references. The only exception I can find is the entry on Free Software Directory (with content and verification by fsf members). Since the project does exist, removing the entire article seems overkill. However, claims requiring 3rd party verification could be removed until such references appear.RCX Slinger (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If no secondary coverage of the topic exists, we can't write a verifiable article about it. The linked directory appears to be a user-generated wiki and is not a reliable source. czar ♔ 17:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid articles need to be supported by a majority of third party sources, primary sources can be used but only when necessary. Third party coverage also helps establish a subject's notability, without which subjects cannot have a presence on Wikipedia. Without significant coverage from reliable third party sources this game simple isn't notable, I did a search before submitting this article here and was unable to come up with anything, the fsf.org link is an open wiki cannot be considered reliable. We'd be looking for sources such as news publications, magazines etc. Яehevkor ✉ 17:23, 20 September 2014 (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.