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. Wickethewok 04:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Widelands[edit]

Widelands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Does not satisfy notability guidelines WP:N and no reliable independent references. The happypenguin link is a user submitted review (anonymous at that) and the strangegamer link is to a wiki (unreliable according to WP:EL). A contested prod, with the suggestion that a google search reveals lots of hits; however as far as I can tell all these hits are download sites, forums, blogs etc; no professionally written articles or reviews; and nothing was added at the time of prod removal. Marasmusine 07:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 07:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failing WP:N. If the game receives coverage from reliable sources when it's released, the article can be recreated. EALacey 13:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per impressive notability: A search on Google for widelands settlers turned up almost a thousand of results, which is a lot for a game that is alpha and not really playable yet.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 16:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide some specific results that satisfy WP:N guidelines? Marasmusine 16:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That Google search provides only 256 unique non-Wikipedia hits [1], most of which are FTP sites, blogs or forums. I can't see anything that hits WP:N. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider the alpha stage / not really playable status of this game, and then one could argue this supposedly 256 (2^8) non-wikipedia related unique hits are _a lot_.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 02:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 235 non-wikipedia related unique google hits for "Marasmusine"! Not bad for someone that hasn't done anything notable. Marasmusine 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. No evidence of available secondary sources. Incidentally, an online handle I abandoned two years ago returns well over 600 hits on Google. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• At least, instead of deleting, it could be merged with the apropiate settlers article (maybe settlers II).-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 18:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally would have no issue with a small 'remakes' section although it might be considered going against WP:EL. Marasmusine 14:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong, delete - Another article that cannot provide reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. And as has been demonstrated by two other editors, search engine results are just as unreliable a reason for keeping as they are for deleting, unless they can be supported. Instead of saying 'We should keep this because it's in development but still has 250 Ghits', how about actually provoding a couple of those 250 websites that are reliable sources? DarkSaber2k 08:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing against it coming back if it ever gets released as non-alpha, and becomes popular. But no, a few hundred hits is not notable.DewiMorgan 19:15, 18 May 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.