Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperWar Project

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HyperWar Project

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

I only found unreliable sources such as forums and blogs. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It certainly is an interesting project, but I'm not finding any reliable sources to establish notability. I found a couple of hits on Google Books with the phrase, but not only is the mentions extremely brief, I can't even be sure that it is referring to this same project. Rorshacma (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, interesting, but not finding independent sources to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far as I can see, there are quite a number of references in reliable sources out there. The trouble is that most of them are literally references - they are simply linking to documents hosted on the Project's website. However, some Web resource guides do recommend the Project's website and give between a sentence and a paragraph of description. (Note that while the site is at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/, some references instead use http://www.metalab.unc.edu/hyperwar/ which redirects there.) Quite possibly not enough to justify keeping, but it does appear to be one of those resources that get used far more than it is discussed. PWilkinson (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but has no references, and notability is an issue too. At the very least, it requires a massive rewrite and re-research, but a delete would be easily justified. P0150neD r1Ce asian 23:58, 7 June 2012 (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.