|
Hedgewars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
Did not notice proposal for deletion in time. Took a few minutes to dig up some sources that it looks like the "delete" votes probably missed. The most notable one I can think of is this interview/review in "Linux Pratique" Issue n°51 on pages 19-21. Review is in "versus" style and continues with Wormux (which I see had *its* deletion tag removed posthaste) on the next 3 pages. Archived in low resolution here. If you're familiar with french and squint, you can just about make out the text. http://www.ed-diamond.com/feuille_lpra51/index.html There are plenty of online reviews, mostly on free software or game sites of course. For example (and there are many others), http://www.freewaregenius.com/2008/10/06/hedgewars-a-fun-competent-worms-clone. Prodego talk 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC), on behalf of 76.21.160.106[reply]
76.21.160.106/m8y.org here (nemo on freenode).
I mentioned to the developers who came up with other articles as well. I think this whole deletion thing was not noticed by them. Here are some of their responses:
koda> you could point out that's a rather known game internationally
koda> and has many reviews
koda> http://www.pcprofessionale.it/2008/11/17/download-del-giorno-hedgewars/
Tiy> nemo, its been in 2 magazines
Tiy> as far as i know
Tiy> its also been reviewed in a lot of gaming sites
Tiy> there are video reviews on youtube
Tiy> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=22
Tiy> http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=NewArchives&issue=105
Tiy> it was in linux format
Tiy> on the cover disc
So, in summary. As well as the print magazine I linked above, it has been in an italian magazine, an english print magazine (where it was also included in the disc that came with the magazine).
Some of this was uncovered through my own modicum of searching, the rest was by briefly mentioning the deletion due to notability on irc://irc.freenode.net/hedgewars
I hope you will reconsider due to this extra information.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.160.106 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin It was unanimous consensus of logged in users that the article be deleted. Procedural process followed. MBisanz talk 02:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I read it right, that isn't quite true as one logged in user !voted keep (the first one). Sorry to pick nits. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, you are correct, my error. I think am not convinced though that it was other than delete. MBisanz talk 03:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion process followed; and for things that may have been missed: none of the additional links provided is a reliable source so no reason to disturb the deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linux magazines would probably pass WP:RS when it comes to issues dealing with open source products.Geni 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't bet too heavily on that: passing mentions in fan or specialty press may be useful to shore up details, but not to establish notability. My local paper would pass as sufficiently reliable source as to when the particular part of the interstate through town was built, but mentioning the repaving of Oak Street or when the four-way stop signs at Sycamore and 8th were installed doesn't make those notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. Nothing pointed out here has indicated how the deletion process was not followed; the process doesn't require notification of everyone who might have an interest in the discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the deletion but allow recreation based on the significant coverage available on these two sources brought forward above here on pages 19 to 21 and here. The original decision to delete was fine but with the new evidence brought forward here I am confident that it would not have been deleted at that AFD as they seem to address the concerns of the delete opinions which talked about the lack of reviews and that it was only covered by blogs and download sites. As such recreation based on this sourcing should be fine. Davewild (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Endorse of close but allow recreation I'm not real happy with ignoring IP !votes (AGF and all that), but the close is otherwise reasonable. New RS have been brought to the fore and thus recreation appears warranted. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist at AfD, the new sources need to be examined, which they were not in the AfD.--Otterathome (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
