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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Widelands[edit]

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

Same notability issues as last time it was deleted, no reliable secondary sources. Sources include official website, the sourceforge bug-tracking page, unofficial dev page, a German download site, and a German Linux community site. Its well-short of "significant coverage". ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pretty much fails WP:N; this isn't a G4 by any chance, is it? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: Not a G4 as the text is a sufficient re-write, with a resonable rationale given by USer:Nasenbaer peter on the talk page. Both German sources are reliable. The "German download site"[1] is Heinz Heise, publisher of c't magazine: but the coverage isn't exactly significant, just a short description of the game. The "German Linux community site" linux-community is affiliated with LinuxUser magazine (Image Publishing, I think?), and that article appeared in print. The LinuxUser article is somewhat more significant, at 3 pages. However, with only one significant source this may fall under WP:N#cite_note-3, to be merged to Linux gaming and/or Settlers II.Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Can a download site be considered a reliable secondary source for a file that it is hosting? It's not really a review as much as it is a description of a file for download. As far as a merge, I could understand the relevance of Settlers II to Widelands, but not the other way around. As the target article is about Settlers II, I'd oppose a merge. Unless an impact on the subject of an article can be shown, I usually remove "similar products" as SPAM. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  c't is a reliable source, but you're right in that the content is not significant. However, The LinuxUser article is useful for verification and showing partial notability, and directly relates Widelands to "Die Siedler II". If its inclusion in Settlers II is neutrally written and cites this source, one can't really call it spam. Marasmusine (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, so not SPAM exactly, but it wouldn't be relevant. Say there was an article on a singer that was not notable but sounded like David Bowie; would it be appropriate to merge the content into the David Bowie article? This is a one-sided connection, it is relevant to Widelands, but not to Settlers II. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  With that analogy, this would be more like a tribute band :> As a compromise, I'd settle for a "see also" link to its listing in Linux gaming. Marasmusine (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I consider the sources would be sufficient, but the game has not actually been released. As I see it, an unreleased game needs considerably stronger sources for notability. DGG (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The magazine source is a good one, but the German download-site is good for nothing. A single solid source doesn't cut it for WP:N. I don't support merging anything to the Settlers series articles, countless games have clones and they're of little if any relevance to the originals they copy. Zero prejudice against reinstatement if further quality sources are found. Someoneanother 09:43, 8 July 2009 (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.