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 22:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frets On Fire[edit]

Frets On Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete: Article cites very few notable sources reads like an advertisement. Teancum (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (changed to) Keep - per recent updates by 76.178.154.232, although the article still needs a lot of work. --Teancum (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Advertising a free product is indeed a blasphemy. Burn the Finns at stake. NVO (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this weather we're having? Good luck getting anything to ignite. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also propose we delete this article based on very few sources and is also an advertisememt would except if they spruce it up a little. HairyPerry 19:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (G11) — sorry; the game may be barely notable enough for inclusion, but the highly-spammish tone screams deletion. No prejudice towards recreation provided article can be rewritten in an encyclopedic (i.e. not advertising) tone. MuZemike (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The non-trivial coverage from Pelit magazine plus placing first at the Assembly competition rises well above the notability standard in my mind. (!) coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This game is no less trivial than Guitar Hero, Guitar Freaks, Rock Band, Rock Revolution, etc.. Why should it be deleted, because it's free? Because it's open source? That's ridiculous! Then we should remove all references to Linux, Firefox, OpenOffice.org, GIMP.... If people think it is trivial enough to make and update this story, why delete it? Deleting articles is one of the dumbest ideas of Wikipedia. User:Chad78_{User talk:Chad78} 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.238.251 (talk) [reply]
  • The deletion nomination has nothing to do with whether it's free. It's the reasons I listed above. --Teancum (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't think this should be deleted; the Pelit reference seems good enough to me to establish some notability. That said, there aren't enough other sources for it... possibly a merge. Hence a comment, and not a !vote. -.- --Izno (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could use work, yes. Deleted? It's notable in that it's one of the earlier guitar hero clone games for the PC. And then there's the fact that it's for the PC, before any 'official' guitar hero style game came to it. There's active discussion going on and possible reductionist editing ... but that doesn't mean it should be removed. 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.154.232 (talk)

• Keep I see a few handfuls of foreign language but reliable sources that can help the existing sources in the game, and mentions in english are more than just in passing, so notability is established. Cleanup needed though. --MASEM 05:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This game has been the subject of articles in multiple reliable sources. It therefore should be kept per WP:N. The article isn't in a particularly great state, but that's not a reason to delete it. Una Laguna^Talk 07:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's all just blatant advertising, then it certainly is a reason to delete. See the deletion policy. MuZemike (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't read like it's all just blatant advertising to me. Una Laguna^Talk 22:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Under WP:DEL, an article should not be deleted if it can be improved. The current lack of sources can be fixed, as proven by those above. DARTH PANDA^duel 14:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article was updated by an IP user with additional references, and a few of them are notable. However, I don't know that a download.com rating could be considered notable, as any file can be listed and user ratings given. No staff from the site have given an Editor's Rating. The same with the Gamespot (which had the wrong URL) reference. The article itself however is improving, which is a start. It still needs a lot of rewriting as parts of it feel like a commercial for the game. Major copy edits are also needed. However I'm willing to swing my vote to keep should the article continue to improve. As-is now it feels like the recent edit weas a rush to keep it from deletion, rather than thought out updates to the page. Many of the references and links provide downloads to copyrighted material as well. These need to be changed or removed. --Teancum (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Minor point that has nothing directly related to the matter at hand: You continue to refer to the sources as notable, when they only need to establish that they are reliable. Notability is used as a cutoff point for the inclusion of topics in Wikipedia, while reliability is used as the cutoff point for the inclusion of certain sources in Wikipedia. For instance, you cite download.com. It obviously fails reliability, as you state that it can be changed by anyone (much like the case of Wikipedia), but it is also a notable site, I'd daresay. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So that leads me to a semi-unrelated question: If said site is notable, yet not high on the reliability scale - yet you have established both reliable and notable sites before to satisfy the article's demands, is it permissible to keep it (the reference)? Normally I'd say no, but as this is open source user opinions feel slightly less... well, useless for lack of a better word. -Teancum (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you possibly refactor and/or bring it to my talk page (an example would be nice)? I'm not quite sure what it is you're asking, as it looks a little convoluted to me. --Izno (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Reliable sources exist to verify facts, and whilst the article does indeed need work, it does not need deletion — neuro^(talk) 06:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nothing wrong with the core of this article, just needs rewriting. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Assembly compo winner, actual sources exist, distributed in major Linux dists, so notability isn't really an issue in my opinion. The rest are content issues. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:45, 21 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.