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. kurykh 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article does not explain how the subject is notable (WP:N), and is completely unreferenced. (WP:V). Prod with notability concern was removed last Jan with the rationale "I was certainly happy to find out about this game here on Wikipedia. The game is in active development.", without addressing the issue. I added a request tag for 3rd party references last June, which I see now was promptly removed, again without addressing the issue. A web search for sources is tricky, as is often the case with free software, due to the large number of download sites, forum mentions, and other unreliable sources. Marasmusine (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although I hate to say it as a supporter of free software, and a fan of the Master of Orion series. I've tried to search for sources myself several times. It was only a matter of time before someone else saw the same problems. Safe to conclude, this article cannot meet WP:N or WP:V because there are no reliable third-party sources about this topic. The only outside shot is if there's a magazine out there, but it's rare that something this recent could have coverage in print and not online. Randomran (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I know exactly where you're coming from, and I wish the project well... perhaps when it reaches v1.0 we'll see some better coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't establish or even suggest why it's notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't understand this. This is one of this issues I have with WP - there's no room in the "rules" for following a gut instinct that by comments above and has already have expressed. This game is a newer open source, free version of a clearly notable game series. As it's not commercial, its going to have a hard time getting coverage. Why can't the fact that it's a legitimate open source offshoot of a clearly notable series allow it to be notable? *sigh* I'm going to lose this argument I'm sure, but it's a fault in the system, IMO. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If a game merely needs to be based on another, notable, game, then I've got dozens of half-finished projects that can have articles written about them. Marasmusine (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I wouldn't say that any open source clone of a notable game is also notable. But in the longer term, if it becomes a well-received game, you should have no trouble getting coverage, and some could definite create the article again with better sources. Randomran (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2008 (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.