Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performous

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. Due to lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performous

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested prod. Unremarkable software. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. References provided are to primary or self published sources such as blogs or the download site. RadioFan (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar game? Similar to what? References are either it's own sourceforge page or a forum post. Neither is an acceptable source. DarkAudit (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, and primary contributor is also the game developer, so it falls under WP:CONFLICT. --Teancum (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have significantly improved the article, which was originally just copy&pasted from UltraStar subsection. Now there are 3rd party reviews linked. The program is important enough for many Linux distributions (Ubuntu and Debian linked in article) to ship it. The program is the only one of its kind, combining all the different types of rhythm/performance games, and also the only open-source band game. I hope that you consider these things before deleting it. Note: I am also an author of the software. Tronic2 (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Performous has been part of the UltraStar page for a long time, but due to the development done this year, it doesn't really fit there anymore, which I suppose to be the reason for Yoda to create a new page for it (I haven't been able to contact him to verify this). It seems to be the best choice the move it away from that article to a separate article, as has been done now. The UltraStar page itself has not been updated yet, pending the decision of this AFD process. Tronic2 (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, I'm drawing a blank for coverage from reliable sources. I'm afraid directory entries, forums and blogs don't quite cut the mustard for verifiability. Marasmusine (talk) 18:14, 27 November 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.