- 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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). Non-admin closure Whpq (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources (tagged for 1.5y), none on Google, "one of the first networked multiplayer games" does not assert notability. Lea (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No sources on Google? IGN, Computerworld articles - they don't count? Achromatic (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you check them at all? IGN only mentions Alto-Trek peripherally and primarily talks about a port of Alto-Trek to DirectX. Computerworld only has "Alto Trek" in the subtitle, and in the dossier ("Epitaph of choice: “I developed Alto Trek [in 1972], one of the very first networked computer games. The things you do when you are young you take with you the rest of your life. So, on my tombstone: ‘Rick Rashid: He developed Alto Trek.’ ”), not in the article itself. Hardly "significant coverage" (WP:N). -- Lea (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 02:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep On the contrary, being one of the first multiplayer games is a big assertion of notability as a historical aspect of video games. The first 20 sites brought up from google in a search for "Alto Trek" brings up The NY Times, IGN, University of Rochester and Business Week. It may be that a merge is needed to Allegiance (computer game), but that's not a matter for AFD. Someoneanother 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch — withdrawn! (It seems that I searched for alto-trek, which did not turn up the NYTimes, Rochester, or Business Week article, when I should instead have searched for "alto trek" or simply alto trek. Isn't Google fascinating, every time.) -- Lea (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Google is a sod like that, the amount of times I've switched words around or grouped them together with speech marks then suddenly been presented with sources which just weren't there before.. anyway, being human beats being something else, especially as you've withdrawn the AFD. I'll try to do something with it when I get time but you could always propose a merge or what have you. Someoneanother 06:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch — withdrawn! (It seems that I searched for alto-trek, which did not turn up the NYTimes, Rochester, or Business Week article, when I should instead have searched for "alto trek" or simply alto trek. Isn't Google fascinating, every time.) -- Lea (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (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.