Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge Builder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. — CharlotteWebb 03:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bridge Builder
No reliable source for notability. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Andre (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I played it when it was called Pontifex, and under that name you may find several reviews and mentions: here, here, here, and doubtless others. SnurksTC 04:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, considering a few writeups in places like this. It's also cited as an inspiration for Armadillo Run here. The third game in the series, Pontifex 2, won the Audience award from Independent Games Festival (source) (edit conflict: Ain't google great?) Nifboy 05:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I rewrote the article to be more WP:V-compliant (and just as well, I wrote the majority of it in the first place, one of my first few edits). Nifboy 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- For best results, please cite any independent in-depth articles that you haven't used as sources in a "Further reading" section of the article, so that editors can use them to expand the article and so that the question of notability doesn't arise again. Uncle G 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd still like to see some more notable sources. Andre (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I rewrote the article to be more WP:V-compliant (and just as well, I wrote the majority of it in the first place, one of my first few edits). Nifboy 05:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep apparently sourced, encyclopaedic. WP:SOFTWARE is not a guideline or a policy, so it shouldn't be mentioned. I'm not sure if this article passes it, nor do I care in the least. WilyD 14:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- There's no reason not to mention it. Being used in practice is one way that things get to be guidelines. Uncle G 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Booksworm Talk to me! 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable, verifiable. Mukadderat 01:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Snurks, Nifboy. Thanks to Uncle G for the idea for future use. --Kizor 17:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
