Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven day roguelike

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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seven day roguelike

Seven day roguelike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable contest type and the article lacks verifiable sources. A cursory search fails to show the availability of sourcing, with Wikipedia (and Wikipedia mirrors) featuring among the top ten hits. The article was created on March 8th, 2006 and shows only 14 edits, 2 of which are the adding and subsequent removal of a Proposal for Deletion. At best, this warrants a sentence or two about this in the Roguelike article. Lankybugger 19:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep well-known within roguelike community. During the two 7drl contests this year, 19 new roguelikes were produced, which is about 2/3 of all new roguelikes which appeared this year. If roguelikes are notable then this subtype of roguelikes must be notable too. Also, Google Groups is far better search tool for this kind of content.  Grue  20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Given that Usenet postings aren't reliable sources (since, for one thing, their authorship is usually impossible to prove), it actually isn't. Google Groups is a useful search tool at Wiktionary, but not at Wikipedia. Are you seriously suggesting that a Wikipedia article be based upon nothing but Usenet posts? Uncle G 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to point out that, since it's creation and according to the article, this contest has attracted a grand total of 47 participants in a period spanning almost two years, with only 32 of those participants happening this year. That certainly doesn't indicate notability. However, if you're willing to source your article with sources which verify under WP:NOTE, WP:SOFTWARE, and/or WP:WEB, I would consider changing to Keep. Until and unless that happens, I must maintain my own voice in the consensus as Delete. Lankybugger 21:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If you don't want to rely on Usenet posts then how about the RogueBasin wiki? It is a major source of all roguelike information. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Roguelike games are a notable area of game development, rooted in the lore and history of the game industry. If this article doesn't survive, I could see merging most of the content to Roguelike, but for organization's sake it is probably a better to keep separate. Tarinth 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed Roguelike games are a notable area of game development (Castle of the Winds was one of my favourite games before I even knew what a roguelike was), but that doesn't necessarily make this challenge notable. Lankybugger 23:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an ongoing driving force in Roguelike games development. Unfortunately the main sources for information regarding Roguelike games fail WP:RS. I personally see that as a shortcoming with WP:RS rather than a shortcoming with the information on rec.games.roguelike.dev Garrie 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Query - can someone point out to me a source for roguelike activity which does meet WP:RS? I have asked similar questions on the talk page there but no useful response.Garrie 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Unfortunately, I don't think that such a source exists. I've found this (which I'll also be adding to the Roguelike page as a source), but for the most part Roguelikes are not featured in gaming news and tend to be a sort of niche market for gamers, especially since Roguelike games individually tend to have little instant recognizability due to the use of letters and symbols for their graphical representation. Lankybugger 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Tarinth 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Roguelike. Also needs a stronger claim of notability and better sources, but that's a job for cleanup. --Alan Au 06:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a job for deletion if there are no sources, and that seems to be the assertion here: The only sources that exist for this are Usenet postings, whose authorship we cannot guarantee and which have not been fact checked. Uncle G 16:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep but needs clean-up Joel Jimenez 04:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC) ← See checkuser request on this user. Crossmr 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:V is non-negotiable, and then there's WP:N, an important part of WP:DP, which also calls for sources. No sources, no article, just as Uncle G says. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:10, 9 January 2007 (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.