Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loki installers for linux gamers
- 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Loki installers for linux gamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website, no reliable sources provided. GlassCobra 05:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete, while I suspect this should be a straightforward delete, this sentence "project has earned the respect of well-known Linux gaming professionals, such as Ryan C. Gordon and Timothee Besset" troubles me - perhaps this is a "lead" to provide notability or at least proper referencing. Otherwise, delete. SMC (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oh man, you know an article is in big trouble when the first reference is to a forum post. Anyway, delete per WP:WEB, WP:N, WP:RS, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I do agree this article could use improvement, as I have been trying to do myself when I have the time to devote to Wikipedia. However, the website is an-in valuable source for Linux gamers and an important support project for many older Linux ported titles. It was reading an un-cited sentence talking about work-arounds to get the Loki port of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri running that got me to create this article. I wanted it so that these statements could be verified by an article. And has been noted it has the support of other notable people with articles. Tag it for improvement, but delete... I do not think so. Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Anyone with any experience in Linux gaming (as I have, I am even a developer) would know the importance of this site. While, this statement in no way shows this article's notability I felt that it should be said. Also note that this site was mentioned by a news source (LinuxGames) which also has an article. I agree as well towards an improvement tag but this article should be given a chance. Comrade Graham (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just a quick look at how many games have these installers (and are hosted by this website) indicated that this is definitely notable. The article has its weaknesses but it can be improved. Kc4 (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not convinced by the keep arguments - being useful to Linux gamers is not notability. Has the website been the subject of media attention? Discussed in any books? Won any awards? I searched the LinuxGames website but could not find the news item mentioned by Comrade Graham. If someone could provide a link, that might help go towards notability, but as always I'd like to see multiple sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 6 news posts on LinuxGames.com which mention LIFLG - http://www.linuxgames.com/?s=liflg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.151.242 (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see, thanks for the link. No significant coverage, then. Marasmusine (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, you do not think there are enough sources. However you will notice a new citation on the main article from the french Linux website Jeux Linux, and I found a few other websites: www.linuxsoft.cz/article.php?id_article=247
http://doc.ubuntu-fr.org/loki http://www.playonlinux.com/fr/news-p34.html http://www.holarse-linuxgaming.de/search/google/liflg?query=liflg&cx=002436057543815263110%3A6jd9luoqxnu&cof=FORID%3A9&sitesearch=&cr=countryDE&hl=de&safe=off#914 as well as finding several mentions on the website http://www.linux-gamers.net/ which I can unfortunately not show since the website is down (and no, that is not the same website as LinuxGames). I did dig up one of the entries badly preserved in Google cache though: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:japAn9-ca2YJ:www.linux-gamers.net/modules/news/index.php%3Fstorytopic%3D0%26start%3D860+liflg+http://www.linux-gamers.net/&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As these sites haven't been discussed yet at WP:VG/RS, I'll need to examine the editoral process they have, as sources require "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (if anyone can read .fr or .cz they are welcome to assist!) Marasmusine (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- there are two books in German which reference LIFLG:
http://books.google.de/books?id=H4Up_J32vogC&pg=PA245&dq=liflg+transgaming#v=onepage&q=liflg%20transgaming&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.171.156.89 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sure it's notable, but only for a very small group of insiders. Therefore NN for WP at large. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that statement doesn't make sense. Notability is an arbitrary cut-off point, yes, but it doesn't require fame. If it did, we should destroy our coverage of asteroids, customs of old Indian tribes, violent crime in the 17th century, cutting-edge quantum physics theories, obscure but significant sayings, etc., etc., etc... Furthermore, there's no way we could establish how many people would have to know about something before its inclusion stopped hurting Wikipedia and started helping it. Even if we could, testing for that would be about as easy as kicking dead whales down the beach. Notability, regardless of its other merits, does not depend on fame. If this is notable, it's notable, period. --Kizor 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But what my comment comes down to is that any topic, no matter how obscure, is notable in somebody's mind. Ultimately, this one is just non-notable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 20:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, that is coherent. Though we should investigate the sources above before making any definitive statements. WP:N, after all, avoids subjective judgement. (Subjective judgement can be a reason for keeping outside the criteria of WP:N - making one rule for all subjects everywhere would be madness, after all, and N's a means rather than an end - but I don't think it works as a reason for deletion.) Do you happen to know any German? --Kizor 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you are entitled to your opinion, but what makes this article any less notable than any others? It is interesting that with so many articles on Wikipedia that do not have any citations and do not have any sources, that this is the one that is being threatened for deletion. It has been mentioned by several online new-sources, mentioned in a few books (though I will admit I did not know that when I made the article), and has the respect of some notable programmers. What more does it need? Just because not everyone on Wikipedia is a Linux Gamer does not mean linux gaming topics should not be covered.Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I think Chargh has put his finger on a sensitive spot. We must work to ensure that our decisions to delete are prudent and fair, because if they're not, they're invariably hypocritical. --Kizor 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, changing from weak delete. I'm not too bothered about the fact that other crap exists arguments are being thrown around like solid policies. As Chargh mentions, it's received some respect from notable programmers, received coverage in books, and has received online coverage (which admittedly isn't as solid as the books). The catch is that all of this will need to be referenced, thoroughly; if that's done, then I see no reason to delete. If however it isn't done and no proof of this notability emerges, this article may wind up facing a second AFD. SMC (talk) 02:50, 2 December 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.