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

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|G}}

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=SuperTuxKart}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=SuperTuxKart}})

This articles fails WP:GNG. Half of the sources referenced are either first-party sources from Twitter and github, and the sources thats actually unrelated to the subject (Sources 27, 26, 24) does not constitute notablity as basically no coverage of Super Tux Kart was seen in those articles. TzarN64 (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Week keep. Linux Journal and OMG! Ubuntu! seem to have pretty regular coverage of the subject, albeit if not the most in-depth. But I'd note "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." And if I'm reading the first AfD correctly, I think notability was established on the back of the list references as identified by the nominator, though that was in 2010, and NVIDEOGAME and NSOFTWARE have become more fleshed-out since. With that said, even within the article describes the sources pretty well (though the URLs are no longer live, they can easily be found on the Wayback Machine):
• {{cite journal|last=Min|first=Andrew|title=Top Five Racing Games|journal=Full Circle Magazine|date=October 2007|issue=6|url=http://dl.fullcirclemagazine.org/issue6_en.pdf|access-date=4 July 2013}}
• {{cite web|last=Oxford|first=Adam|title=12 of the best games for your Linux netbook|url=http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/12-of-the-best-games-for-your-linux-netbook-528696|work=TechRadar|date=February 12, 2009|access-date=July 4, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306165902/http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/12-of-the-best-games-for-your-linux-netbook-528696|archive-date=March 6, 2016}}
• {{cite web|last=Sbarski|first=Peter|title=Top 5 best (free) open source games|url=http://apcmag.com/top_5_best_free_open_source_games.htm|publisher=APC|date=January 21, 2008|access-date=July 5, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120114025733/http://apcmag.com/top_5_best_free_open_source_games.htm|archive-date=January 14, 2012}}

:Yeah, while these sources may leave some wanting, my BEFORE turns up a lot of the similar. I think given the breadth of the coverage, that would make up for the albeit limited coverage in the sources presently listed. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Was no reading done of the first AfD for this article, which ended as "keep"? That AfD mentioned it got covered in multiple magazines, e ven besides what was demonstrated by User:Bobby Cohn. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, which is why it fails GNG. A topic covered in a magazine does not demostrate notablity. TzarN64 (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::They *are* significant coverage though? [https://archive.org/details/Linux-Journal-2007-11/mode/2up?q=%22supertuxkart%22 SIGCOV 1], [https://archive.org/details/Linux_Format_121August_2009/page/n71/mode/2up?q=%22supertuxkart%22 SIGCOV 2], [https://archive.org/details/LinuxVoice/Linux-Voice-Issue-001/mode/2up?q=%22supertuxkart%22 SIGCOV 3]. [https://archive.org/details/komputer-swiat-11-2020-ds/Komputer_%C5%9Awiat_01_2020_DS/mode/2up?q=%22supertuxkart%22 This] also seems like SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I found none of these sources listed at WP:RSP. TzarN64 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::See WP:RSPMISSING. Sources can be reliable without being listed at WP:RSP. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::And usually published print magazines are considered reliable by default unless there is proof to the contrary. Magazine implies an editorial staff. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I have never heard of these magazines in my life, and I’ve seen none of these magazines used in articles. Are you really sure some random magazines demonstrate notability? TzarN64 (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Linux Format, Linux Journal and Linux Voice all have their own articles. They are certainly not "random magazines". Komputer Świat is Polish so it doesn't have an article here but I'm gonna assume it's equally as notable, because why would it not be. It's a full circulation gaming magazine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::These articles all rely excessively on first party sources and similarly show no sign of notablity. Nominating those for deletion later. TzarN64 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Again, you should look harder before saying something has "no sign of notability". I already found a source and put it on the talk pages. Looking beyond the sources currently used on the page is critical because often editors do not look hard enough or are unaware of what is a reliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Note: Komputer Świat has a comprehensive article at the Polish Wikipedia [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komputer_%C5%9Awiat here]. It would pass notability for an article here even, if someone would be interested in translating it. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per excellent source searching above by Zx and Bobby Cohn. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, notable per sources provided above by Zxcvbnm and Bobby Cohn. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per above print magazine sources. Note: Komputer Świat is the Polish equivalent of Computer Bild magazine. --Mika1h (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, per above great research. The subject on Google has a good number of detailed and minor mentions in a minute of related search. WP:BEFORE. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep, game clearly passes GNG with reliable coverage as indicated by other users. Doesn't look like WP:BEFORE was performed here. MidnightMayhem 09:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep This it notable in my view. It has a significant amount of RSes covering it, certainly enough to justify keeping. It is also a well written and visually appealing page, which is not enough on its own but bolsters inclusion in my opinion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep Meets GNG. Sources are not only primary. There are many independent and reliable sources. Good number of coverage in quick google search. WikiMentor01 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)