Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HoverRace

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoverRace

Article gives no indication of notability with multiple independent reliable sources. Whispe ring 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, looks like an ad. Realkyhick 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Overview of the game can be found at gamespy.com and ign.com, two reputable gaming sources.--Ispy1981 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has sources. Game is historical, and has a future in open-source. -RedBlade7 21:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both sources are trivial we need better ones. Whispe ring 10:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a notable game, article needs cleanup, but a wiki-worthy topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs)
Comment That may be true but we still need reliable sources proving it's notability. Whispe ring 18:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GameSpy and IGN are reputable and reliable sources for gaming news and information. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the mentions are both trivial. They both consist of a short paragraph about the game and where you can get it. No review or anything like that. Whispe ring 10:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~Weak keepI was about to say weak delete after googling for like an hour (hm, sifting through 600 unique results) - so one thing we know for sure is that every single gaming site out there seems to have a trivial mention of it :P But then, one other thing which turned up before i stopped, on page 3 of the results or so, was [1] - it seems to be a really old review, likely from the beginnings of the internet, and it's not accessible from its main site (which i'm not sure would be notable, so no good using as reference anyway). But a user comment says "we even had an article in the 98 december issue of GamePro" - if someone can confirm that there's this article, I'd change to "week keep", also seeing how it still is being developed and might gain some notability as open source game, and how it has its old age and still players, and the fact how it changed from closed commercial to open source. --Allefant 11:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marašmusïne_Talk 16:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a single reliable, independent reference, per WP:V. To elaborate: forums and wikis are not WP:Reliable sources. Marašmusïne_Talk 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "the company self-proclaimed it as the first internet-based online multiplayer game" is enough to make me think it's just an advert. Fin ©™ 21:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable soruces, unverifiable, rudimentary listings on IGN and Gamespot not enough unless actual commmentary has been made on the games by the sites (IE features or reviews). DarkSaber2k 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (note: new information) the game is listed on IGN and GameSpy, and has been professionally reviewed archive_link. The review does not look as shiny as the normal GameSpot links because the archive strips some content. --User:Krator (t c) 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IGN and GameSpot just show directory entries; no articles, news or reviews. The Ogaming review; can we confirm that AhmedF is/was a staff member and not a user-contributed review? Marašmusïne_Talk 07:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With some googling [2] I guess we can be pretty sure he was the one who owned ogaming.com at the time that review was up there. --Allefant 12:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is ogaming.com good enough though? But at least over archive.org the link can be used as reference, other than the deep-link I had found, and if we assume there really is the offline GamePro article, then I think there's no more reason to delete it, so I changed my vote above - better to err on the keep side. --Allefant 11:56, 16 July 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.