Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TripleA (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TripleA

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

In the past, I have nominated many article for deletion on the grounds that they failed establish the notability of the topic by citing coverage in reliable secondary sources. None have been as bad as this article: It cites coverage from very unreliable sources! Namely, LisiSoft, modDB, Chip.eu (not to be confused by chip.de), soft-files.com, freewaregenius.com, the once-respected Download.com, and, worst of all, BrotherSoft! Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! This article was deleted TWICE before? I did not know that. Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4? —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I'll second the speedy delite, having been deleted before. Having a look at the game, it seems legit, and seems to have some vague discussion, but the references are fairly soft, just the odd web site. No reviews for it I could see. Most of the references on the page are web sites, and half the links don't work! Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A game with a long history as successful freeware and open source game. that it was deleted before and keeps popping up is not a reason for deletion but a reason for keeping and that the deletions were maybe over-eager. Also, it would be great if instead of deletion a search for sources would be conducted. I found instantly a chip.de source. Shaddim (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC) Edit: an even stronger source, long print-media (with editorial overview) review[reply]
Weak Keep. While the number of unique downloads is not listed with the Sourceforge information, I feel that a game with over 1 million downloads certainly could fall into the noteworthy category. While I agree with the above comment that many of the sources "are soft", as the game is freeware I would tend to expect that. Ceronomus (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TripleA has a constant online community of gamers. It is among not so many games in List_of_open-source_video_games#Open_engine_and_free_content. All games in this category have Wikipedia articles, although not all of them are as popular as TripleA is. Regarding "None have been as bad as this article", I'm sorry to hear that, maybe the article can be improved, but I believe the game is certainly worth an article. It is fairly popular and is in the category of open source software. We should not assume that all open source software is non-notable just because they don't have a company to fund marketing and to improve visibility. The game is in the official Ubuntu repositories. I have added external links with reviews, including reviews from Cnet, Macworld, Chip, Ghacks. Even disregarding the current success, games/software should be considered notable also for historical value. TripleA is maintained right now (by a team of 3), and has been maintained (and played) for the past 15 years.Dl.goe (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article as written suffers from a large number of low-quality references, probably added to survive the AfD process. There is an 82-page dissertation cited as a reference; the rest appear to be references to promotional materials or game reviews. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is now mostly addressed in the latest version. Shaddim (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are even more low-quality references, which makes it worse IMO. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific ? I tried to filter out non-relevant ones and added only the one which help to understand the reach and impact the game achieved as Freeware game in the freeware game download scene, e.g. by adding for instance that is was included in digital distributor Desura Shaddim (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I first looked at the article, there were 18 references in the reflist. Now, there are 29, including a few (such as a Gentoo package) which are egregiously trivial in nature. Note WP:OVERCITE Power~enwiki (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the pure number of citations directly leads to overcitation: sometimes you have to back up facts more fine grained. And I disagree that the inclusion of Linux distribution's integration is "trivial". Quite the opposite, linux distributions have hight standards on content review and license review for their content, therefore their inclusion has weight. Shaddim (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with others that the game is certainly worth an article as a successful game with a long history, and that the difficulty with finding reliable sources to show notability is because it is freeware. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the many references posted in desperate attempt to save the article only games4mac.de and linux-user.de look like reliable sources with broad enough coverage. I also found half page short article about this game in Linux Format magazine (issue 151, December 2011, p. 72). This is enough to prove notability of this game. For me, sole reason for delete is lack of Amiga port... Pavlor (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"lack of amiga port" ;) Shaddim (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2017 (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.