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. Article is four months old and still has no WP:RS or WP:V in it. This AfD did not uncover any significant sources in this area but several reviews mentioned here indicate moderate notability. I'll admit I vacillated several times between "delete" and "no consensus" because of this lack of substantial sources. Pigman☿ 05:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TAGAP[edit]

No independent, reliable reviews or articles. Plenty of download sites and a few blog mentions, but nothing to satisfy WP:N. Marasmusine 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reviews? Here's some; [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

In addition to these the game has been featured in multiple printed magazines, both gaming and freeware software alike. And it has it's own spot on GameSpot [8], which is far from granted for freeware games; Unlike with commercial games, freeware titles that appear on GameSpot are, in their opinion, worth noticing. (quoting from GameSpot's Knowledgebase);

Why doesn't GameSpot have free or pay to play games in the database?

Because of the high number of free "casual" games on the Web, GameSpot restricts Web/Online-Only games to those that offer pay-to-play options. While we may decide to expand our coverage to include ALL games eventually, GameSpot's main focus is retail-released and digitally distributed games.

I sincirely hope you'd reconsider this decision, which seems a bit like jumping the gun, since WikiPedia features plenty of other freeware games with a lot less actual press/Internet coverage and international popularity, i.e. Liero.

--Necrophilissimo (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep i think it is relevant as it is an article about a game but needs cleanup and sources Ctjf83 22:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep specialist sources and foreign language sources have reasonable coverage of this game. [9] [10] [11]. Particularly the last link looks quite notable. As a quite recent development, I would favour giving this chance. The sources I linked allow for a reasonably-sized verified stub. User:Krator (t c) 15:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In terms of trying to find coverage that satisfies WP:N, these links (9, 10, 11) are trivial press releases. Of Necrophilissimo's links, the Gamespot entry does not provide any significant coverage. Links 1 to 7; I haven't heard of any of these sites so can't comment on how they might be reliable sources, but certainly the review from German magazine PC Action is acceptable. Necro; I'm not sure what decision you want me to reconsider? Marasmusine (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - RE: "Necro; I'm not sure what decision you want me to reconsider?". I mean the deletion in general; TAGAP is a hardcore kind of game which is steadily gaining popularity, has dedicated support from the developers and has a sequel coming up promising a freeware franchise of sorts. Since I'm personally involved in creation of the sequels, I can't improve the article myself with the wanted references (i.e. Moby Games [12], Wikia [13] and article in Finnish magazine Pelit [14]). And worth mentioning is All Media Guide, in which TAGAP is featured in both AllMusicGuide [15] and AllGameGuide [16]. --Necrophilissimo (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Necro, the article in Pelit will help with establishing notability, if you can provide a citation. The Mobygames, Wikia, AMG and AGG links are too trivial, really (take a look at WP:N). I appreciate you might be concerned about WP:COI if you are involved in the game, but any citations you can provide will be useful (and at this point we are looking for non-trivial, independent articles, not just anonymous directory entries). Marasmusine (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Marasmusine; In what manner do I add the PELIT article; It's in the printed, physical magazine, so is it enough that I provide the issue/page/writer/publisher information, or do I need to scan the article? I can scan it, it's not a problem. --Necrophilissimo (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Liero and Soldat has what? like 4 pages of text, and TAGAP can't even get one? --Deep Alexander (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think all links but the first one of Necrophilissimo's and a Finnish gaming zine are totally acceptable as Wikipedia citations. And seven references should be more than enough to prove the game's notablity. Neko jarashi (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While all the links are fine for citations, they aren't all suitable to show notability. However, I see at least one which can be used (PC Action), and if the article in Pelit magazine is usable, that makes two (Necro, it is a full article, isn't it, and not just a press release or trivial mention?) I'll be happy to work them into the article when this AfD is closed. Marasmusine (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think makes PC Action article suited for offering notability of the game? I read, and since my understanding of the German language is very limited, Google Translated the said article, but I didn't find anything more than regular reviewing of a video game in it. Neko jarashi (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're right, I ran it through Alta Vista and it just seems to be a token game description and download page. I thought it was a review from the actual paper magazine. Marasmusine (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pelit article is a their mini-review, the kind they have for budget-releases. Shorter than their triple-A title review, but certainly longer their one paragraph 'just released freeware games' announcements. --Necrophilissimo (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks for your answer, Murasmusine. So you think only published paper materials should be considered reliable sources in Wikipedia? But it appears that Wikipedia policies allow usage of online materials as well if appropriate. Also, as far as I know, WP:N or other guidelines/policies in Wikipedia do not impose a task that notability of a subject must clearly be stated by outside sources, which leads to a conclusion that it is the Wikipedia editors who ultimately decide if a given subject is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. That said, and given that most of freeware games, or freewares in general, are usually not covered even in a single substantial material, I think that the fact that TAGAP has been recieved extensive coverages by six decent-looking websites is a proof of notability. Neko jarashi (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would personally delete this, but I'd rather let a more experienced Admin make the decision here.Balloonman (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2007 (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.