Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TripleA (computer game)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TripleA (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently non-notable game. Article cites no independent third-party sources. Psychonaut (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any evidence of notability for this video game. A search of MobyGames didn't turn up anything for this game in the way of reviews. Wikipedia is not a game guide, but parts of this article read thus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just want to state that there is a somewhat large Community out there playing this game in play-by-email games, as an online variant of Axis and Allies. In my opinion, if axis and allies is noteworthy, this is too. Also this article provided me with a lot of useful information if that counts for anything. -- 85.181.110.208 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep mentioned in this scholarly paper as well as this scholarly paper. As an aside, the nominator has been making a huge number of deletions of game articles without doing any real due diligence looking for sources. For example, sources for TripleA can be found with a simple Google Scholar search which the nom did not bother to do. Samboy (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator was well aware of those student dissertations. They are not peer-reviewed published works the same way other "scholarly publications" are and thus cannot be used to established notability. Besides which, TripleA is the primary subject of neither of these dissertations; it is simply mentioned in both works as being used in their respective AI projects. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are only two papers on the Google Scholar search that are actually relevant. They have received no citations and no indication that they have been peer reviewed. Samboy, please read WP:AGF. Marasmusine (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not appear to be verifiable through reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Samboy. LotLE×talk 01:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Psychonaut, the papers are not about the game and so do not grant it notability, they just happen to use the game. There's already a paragraph about this game in the [Axis and Allies] article, and the link to the official website could always be added as a source for that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VernoWhitney (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The references mentioned in this discussion do not establish notability, and so far no other valid arguments for keeping have been brought forward. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:47, 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.