Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TetriNET

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. W.marsh 02:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TetriNET

TetriNET (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This was tagged for speedy deletion as 'blatant advertising', which I feel is not the case. However, as it has also been PROD'd (and contested), I hope no-one will mind if I bring it here rather than adding a {{hangon}} tag. Article has two main problems; a lack of independent references (WP:V), and no real claim to notability (WP:N). Other issues (game-guide material, excessive external links) can be cleared up should this be a keeper. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 17:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• DELETE - per nom. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 17:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- Long running and recognized online game with significant international community, and many open source and related internet projects. Notability bias works against this subject as it is an exclusively internet phenom. Reminds of Subspace as similar in notability, status, etc. Working on sources to satisfy WP:N, see open directory category, freshmeat project, case's ladder league... ∴ here…♠ 18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  Well the Open Directory source is a directory entry, as appears to be the case with the Freshmeat project; I would call those trivial. The ladder league would not be an independent source. If it's as recognized as you say, then I'm sure there must be an article or a review out there from a reliable website. Marašmusïne_Talk 18:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  Running 24/7 for over 10 years, mpogd.com, mobygames.com. The best indication of notability I can find is the sheer number of client+server apps which have been ported to most modern operating systems. These ports are not simply tetris clones, but actual TetriNet clients and servers. If not kept, should be merged into Tetris. This a long-living internet meme and community which I feel would be best kept seperate from the main Tetris article. ∴ here…♠ 18:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I was the one who contested the initial PROD on grounds of non-notability. Article clearly has a lot of room for improvement, particularly in the area of independent references, but from the logs it is apparently that improvement is being made at a fairly rapid pace (many edits in the past week alone). Moreover, there is and historically has been a significant online community, and a simple Google search turns up numerous articles and pop-culture references to the game (some of which should certainly be incorporated into the article).Konekoniku 18:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've been looking for references; I won't deny it's a popular game. Lots of sites that will be useful for WP:Verification (entry at Mobygames, passing mentions at places like Gamenikki). However I haven't found anything to satisfy WP:N. Marašmusïne_Talk 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  I believe notability can be satisfied by the numerous ports and open source projects based on this subject. The fact that ports of this are available for nearly any modern OS shows a level of recognition within the electronic community. I would venture than a widely indexed port for an OS like Debian might be treated as a single published article on the subject. Mainstream media coverage appears non-existant. ∴ here…♠ 18:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  There is no question as to how well-known or popular it is, that has nothing to do with this discussion. Notability is not popularity. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have nothing personal against the game, but it does not meet notability guidelines, so should not be here. ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 19:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Has potential. Not blatant spam, but article needs a lot of improvement. Rackabello 20:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable, probably hard to reference, but doable and it should not be deleted. Andre (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per lack of "significant coverage" from independent sources. I searched google news and only saw trivial mentions. Corpx 21:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

  The game is from 1997. Are you sure google news archives go back that far? --Allefant 10:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• keep, found this on lexis nexis trivially: "Copyright 1997 COMPUTIMES, The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad; September 22, 1997; Addictive game for Tetris lovers; SECTION: Technology; ; Pg. 48; LENGTH: 939 words." The whole thing is completely about TetriNET. — brighterorange (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notability is self-evident here, and deletion would not serve to improve our encyclopedia. Yamaguchi先生 04:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is far from failing notability, 280 000 google hits including many reviews. Just two random picks from the first results page: [1] [2], but apparently there are many more, no point spending time on this though. Editors of the article of course should look for good references and add them - but lazy editors is no reason to delete. --Allefant 10:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: a very well known, popular game (I remember playing it a lot back in University). It was also the subject of the Linux.conf.au 2004 HackFest [3] --James 09:41, 24 July 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.