Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arianne

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) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arianne

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

Article is not based on reliable, secondary sources. I found a handful of papers on Google Scholar that mention it: [1][2] but not in any significant detail. Web hits seem limited to forums and directories. I do not think this meets the notability criteria for inclusion (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a useful open source tool for developing games for the Internet. There are lot of hits on Google even when you subtract "RPG" and "MMORPG" and "baby names": Arianne open source internet games Google hits. Obviously, the article needs a lot of working doing to it and some quality references need to be added. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 09:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you select two of these Google hits that meet our standards for reliable sources? Marasmusine (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am not motivated enough to do that. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had the motivation to look through those Google hits, and I can't see anything that would qualify for verifiability or notability. Marasmusine (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The software doesn't appear to be notable enough for a wikipedia article. Considering that it's been around over 10 years, I would have expected that some publication would have picked up on it. --George100 (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does not meet the "significant" threshold. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:59, 25 June 2011 (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.