User talk:Thelinx#top

Hi Thelinx, would you be able to look through WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? I know that's a big read, but the LÖVE article currently does not cite any reliable publications for secondary sourcing. I have previously not been able to find any for this topic. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

:I did link to several notable games made with LÖVE (and references to their notability), what more is needed? -- Linus Sjögren (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

:Information about LÖVE from reliable, secondary sources; preferably in the form of significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

:Would [http://www.ubuntugamer.com/2010/12/love-070-released/ this] suffice? -- Linus Sjögren (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

::Whilst I can give the benefit of the doubt with regards unbutugamer as a reliable source, I would prefer something a bit more compelling than a version update announcement. This might be an acceptable reference for listing LÖVE at the List of game engines and Lua articles. Marasmusine (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::What exactly do you need? [http://www.brighthub.com/hubfolio/matthew-casperson/articles/81764.aspx Here's] an off-site tutorial, written by a third-party. [http://www.korben.info/love-framework.html Here's] a featurette of LÖVE on a french blog that has gained a couple thousand views. I'm afraid I don't understand what exactly you need before you can view LÖVE as "notable." -- Linus Sjögren (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

::::So: 1) for inclusion anywhere, we need a reliable source as described at WP:RS, and I think the ubuntugamer source can be used for this (but I may get a second opinion). 2) To justify a seperate article, we use the guideline at WP:Notability which asks that the sources provide significant coverage, and that there preferably be multiple instances of such coverage. The use of Bright Hub has been discussed before [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dead_Frontier_%282nd_nomination%29 here] and the concensus was that it doesn't qualify as a RS. Korben is a self-published blog, so one would need to demonstrate that the author is an "established expert" before we consider using it. I hope this clarifies! Marasmusine (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LÖVE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LÖVE until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Marasmusine (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)