Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tux, of Math Command

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.

Keep per consensus. Satisfying sources found and nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. ^walk victor falk^talk 01:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tux, of Math Command

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

Non-notable game. The article's references have only passing mentions of the software being available somewhere, and/or are not reliable sources (school newsletters, etc.). Psychonaut (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:RS does not seem to preclude the use of school newsletters as sources. Also the article is well written, though some things could be improved. Lastly, the use of free software in an educational setting strikes me as notable. RadManCF (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure a school newsletter would count as one of the self-published sources that WP:RS says should be avoided. Besides which, I believe the newsletter in question merely mentions the software's availability at the school; this doesn't count as significant coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School newsletters in past RFD's have not been considered Reliable or Reputable sources. Now a local newspaper plus some TV coverage or some other newspaper/trade magazine coverage would qualify. Something from a school newsletter...WP:RS has this to say "For that reason 'self-published media'—whether books, 'newsletters', personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Salt the earth with this one, Admin. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 03:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article in Linux Journal. Also, has a blurb in this book. Also in a roundup on Techtree and another in LinuxPlanet, discussed in this Linux.com article on educational software, and mentioned in Business Line a mainstream business newspaper, not focused on Linux. Pcap ping 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two Linux.com sources seem convincing. LotLE×talk 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added sources to the article from this debate. Prof of notability. Well done everybody! ;)Comrade Hamish Wilson (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are amazingly good for an article on a topic like this and the game is a very good example of a both free software and GNU/Linux compatible educational game. I don't like this anti-free and anti-GNU/Linux bias that seems to be evident among deletionists, since both, largely the former, are what helped give life to Wikipedia in the first place. Comrade Graham (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Linux Journal article doesn't cover the game extensively but is an example of the kind of source games need, linux or no. The others presented help to form a very basic level of notability. I'm not sure about the linux.com article, the site distances itself from the articles it hosts rather than backs them up. However, this review from download site Softpedia looks OK. Admittedly I can't find any editorial information, but it's an 'editor's review' from a longstanding download site. Someone another 00:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to a broader article. Few of the references added qualify as reliable sources; I hope that the contributing editors can review WP:RS. Of the usable sources, only one represents significant coverage (Linux Journal) - we would normally ask for more for a standalone article. Marasmusine (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per LotLE Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nominator. I'm pleased to see that the discussion here has turned up some acceptable sources for this subject. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2010 (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.