Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iter Vehemens ad Necem

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. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iter Vehemens ad Necem

No coverage in independent, reliable sources after several days of concern. Fails WP:N for notability. Eyrian 03:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything I could say to defend it would only delay the inevitable. No use crying over spilt milk. Such is life. We're all in this together, but we all die alone. Make it quick, I don't want to get depressed abominably more then I already am. What does it matter, the "Violent Road to Death" is always waiting anyway. Down the tubes. --Planetary 04:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is one of those articles where I feel I know less about the subject after reading it than before. Don't see how it could ever be rescued, and even it it did would fail WP:N - iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ......--Snarius 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion not a vote - if you're arguing keep, you need to give a reason - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's backwards. If there's no reason to delete, then it should be kept. Planetary didn't give a reason to delete, and yours is mostly bullshit. That notability thing was only ever a non-reason. --Snarius 21:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That notability thing" isn't a non-reason, it's the primary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, which this article currently fails - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Snarius here's a more concrete reason to delete: I give up.It's hopeless to resist, stop prolonging the agony, once something gets on AFD,it doesn't come back except under extenuating circumstances, which I don't see here. There's no way for the article to satisfy the(rather arbitrary) notability rules, so it's gotta go. No use moping, in my opinion. --Planetary 21:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides also existing in other languages (fr, fi, pl), this game is distributed on netbsd and freebsd, which is a useful way to indicate notability according to the criteria in WP:SOFTWARE. John Vandenberg 08:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not seeing to which criterion of WP:SOFTWARE you are referring. Could you please elaborate? --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  "The software is included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, ..." John Vandenberg 01:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being available for an OS distribution is vastly different than being included with it (otherwise every piece of junk written for Windows would meet the criterion), and I see nothing indicating the latter. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FreeBSD and NetBSD actually include this software within their Ports collection. It is not addon software; every installation of these OS's include it as optional software. This would be like Microsoft including it on the CDs it distributes in an optional games pack. It has been included in the FreeBSD codebase since Nov 2005, meaning FreeBSD team members active maintain it. It has been included in NetBSD since Jun 2004. While im at it, it is worth noting it is also included in the Gentoo portage tree since Nov 2005. John Vandenberg 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:SOFTWARE:"Note that some distributions, such as Debian, include a particularly large number of packages. The more packages a distribution includes, the less notability is implied by inclusion in that distribution." FreeBSD Ports has at least 16,000 packages, NetBSD's pkgsrc over 6,500, and Gentoo's Portage (software) at 20,000+. Phony Saint 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 00:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If something is notable then sources should be available, existence on other wikis is hardly a reason to keep an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of notability per WP:SOFTWARE. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep When notability cannot be clearly established, the article should be tagged, not deleted. That's policy, which overrides guidlines. Wikipedia would lose almost everything but its FA and GA pages if we handled every article the same way. Tag the article and leave it be. There is no reason to delete it. Matt Brennen 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Strong Agree (with comment) (and abstain from voting) - It takes up peoples' time to have to defend others hard work through these votes when many articles could instead be cited for missing notability, or merging or splitting, etc. instead of just deleted.--R e m i 01:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Assume good faith. I can't speak for other editors, but I at least do a little homework and try to find sources, etc., before I make a recommendation one way or another. Yes, notability is not policy, but it's a better barometer than WP:NOHARM. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did tag it for notability. It got removed a few times, and people refused to add sources. See the article's talk page. --Eyrian 02:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Eyrian's comment I say delete. The sources aren't there and it looks like no one is gonna put them there.Shindo9 Hikaru 02:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and unnotable. --RaiderAspect 02:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Comment appears to have been edit conflict deleted; original from here[reply]
Weak keep per John Vandenberg. Weak presence of notability, but I'll take that. Sr13 (T|C) ^ER 03:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, no assertion of notability beyond how it's distributed, and this has been demonstrated to be an unreliable assertion of notability. DarkSaber2k 09:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. DarkSaber2k 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there are no sources, and as yet I see none.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 10:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are actually four sources --St.daniel ^talk 11:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your right. The official site, an unofficial wiki site and two forums. All highly unreliable sources. DarkSaber2k 11:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this. Editor's choice, plus an articulate appraisal. Stammer 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would change my vote if I could find out how many players the game has.
Quibble. I'd rather translate it as "Violent Journey to Death". Stammer 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: A directed Google search turns up 150 unique hits [1], more than I'd expected, and some of them look good. If the article had any decent independent sources, my vote would change ... but this is a three-year-old article. No excuses. Rather than screaming at the injustice of deletion policy, perhaps Keep proponents could ... mmm, source the article? RGTraynor 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eyrian and RGTraynor. If those who are interested in the topic refuse to add sources and remove notability tags (and the rest of us don't care enough to improve it) when will this ever get better? 140.247.248.50 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Oops, not signed in: Calliopejen1 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- It may have assertion of notability but I have never heard of it. Does meetWP:SOFTWARE, but I don't think 9/10 people have heard of it. Retiono Virginian 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gee, let's see...Fails the mandatory policy of attibution, the general policy on notability and it's specific subsection of notability concerning software. Game over. NeoFreak 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)software[reply]
'Weak Keep' - It seems to cross the minimum threshhold of WP:SOFTWARE and lack of attention doesn't in itself indicate failure of WP:N. I would suggest, however, that the advocates for the article try to address the concerns expressed by the other editors with all speed if they truly want to save it. Eggishorn 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fails WP:RS though. --RaiderAspect 14:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's granted the tiniest sliver of notability under WP:SOFTWARE, being one of thousands of pieces of software included with those OSes. (See my note above; 1 out of 16,000 is not a good ratio.) But, WP:SOFTWARE isn't an official notability guideline, and the article's subject doesn't meet any other relevant notability guidelines. Phony Saint 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has gotten a lot more attention then I thought. Looks like it won't go down without a fight, but if the fight is long enough, an admin will delete it out of spite, I'm quite sure.--Planetary 02:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With keeps like yours, who needs deletes? Stammer 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, unnotable, low quality, with "keep" arguments composed mostly of fanboys who are convinced this is some kind of battle. All the things we shouldn't have in a game article.Wokinlone 02:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for inclusion into an encyclopedia. Captain panda 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a few reviews in somewhat notable places: Home of the Underdogs and http://www.gamehippo.com --Hexii 09:40, 1 May 2007 (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.