326:. I don't see any independent reliable sources that have discussed these presentations. Contrary to the above comments, "Let's plays" appear to be presented from the player's point of view, not the programmer's, so I wouldn't expect to find them covered in a book about programming video games. The phrase "let's play" is so common in the English language that I will have to leave it to the supporters of this article to find the sources. --
458:- an article cannot be built on information from forums and YouTube channels. It doesn't matter how popular Lets Plays are if no reliable publications have written about them. My own magazine search hasn't unearthed anything that can be used for verifiability, let alone notability (except for an unrelated game series by Deep Silver for the DS)
269:
now? I thought we didn't consider any wikilike anything near a RS. The three books you mention are all programming books that have nothing to do with LPs. I did look and wasn't able to find anything via a gsearch; gnews turns up irrelevant results as well. Searching ("let's play" video game) reduces
371:
which have their own article and a lot of well knock internet personalities such as Spoony and
Linkara are doing them because of their growing popularity. The term is obscure and people need a reliable source for information on what exactly a Let's Play is so they aren't left getting some slanted
341:
Subject is borderline notable, and the sources scarce. Taking a look at the possible sources DGG presented as compared to the article content...I would be very shocked. It doesn't take much more than even a second to realize that what the books are documenting and what the article are about are 2
221:-- which might even be considered close to a RS. . It would in no case have been an A7, not necessarily being web content--and I don't think A7 would apply to a class of web content in any case. There are many other meanings of the phrase, so a qualifier is needed for the article title.
48:. The consensus here is that there is insufficient reliable coverage for notability. The encyclopaedia cannot responsibly include articles whose content is substantially unverifiable; should anyone want to include this content on another wiki of a different scope, please feel free to ask.
217:
or possibly a merge somewhere. The forums indicate there are possibly references available,and even the nominator says there might be. Did he even look?--I admit it's not an very obvious gsearch, but perhaps there are some hints to finding them in the forums--I particularly note
247:
475:. There are no reliable sources for the subject, which is grounds for deletion according to policy. Remember that AfD is for discussing whether an article should be deleted according to Knowledge (XXG)'s policies, and as such reasons like
405:
I am part of a university gaming club and we often do "Let's Play"s at club meetings. I didn't know what they were at first and I think having a
Knowledge (XXG) article or section on them is important for others seeking information.
372:
point of view from a private web site. I was going to add this article until I saw someone had beat me to it and I WILL re-add it at some point in the future so we can all go through this again and again and again and again.
245:
342:
mutually exclusive topics. If this were to be kept, I would probably suggest it being reduced to the stub status it recently had until some reliable sources can by found. (The stub status seems to have been reverted by
159:
242:
120:
153:
285:
a programming book on programming video games would be exactly the right type of source--it would discuss using this technique. The closest I have found so far is
423:
This article has expanded from humble beginnings and has begun to accumulate sources, it shouldn't just be discarded because some people don't find it notable yet.
483:
hold no weight here. If you can prove based on policy that the article merits inclusion more than deletion, that will be taken into consideration.
190:
The article is extensive but it has no actual sources about LPs itself, only links to forums and lists of LPs. Technically this would fall under
17:
174:
141:
304:
Technique? What do LPs have to do with programming beyond the fact that they can involve commentary on coding errors in a game?
367:
The Let's Play scene is growing rapidly from its start just a year or two ago. Its significantly different from the old style
93:
88:
97:
80:
507:
36:
488:
135:
219:
131:
506:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
445:
330:
208:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
411:
181:
484:
274:. I'm not saying that I'm positiv eno source exists, only that any such source isn't immediately obvious.
56:
492:
467:
463:
448:
432:
415:
395:
381:
359:
333:
310:
299:
280:
260:
232:
62:
389:
The problem is that there are no good sources for this article. If you can find them, it'll get kept.
428:
480:
442:
377:
327:
167:
50:
476:
351:
147:
407:
355:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
459:
393:
308:
278:
206:
84:
347:
191:
424:
438:
271:
266:
195:
373:
199:
295:
256:
228:
114:
286:
76:
68:
390:
305:
275:
203:
437:
My concern is not so much that the topic is not notable, but that it isn't
368:
290:
251:
223:
202:, but I'm not entirely sure that they couldn't be found in this case.
500:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
288:, but the full text is not available to me immediately.
270:
it to relevant stuff, but nothing that's anywhere near a
343:
110:
106:
102:
241:
as possibly relevant sources I list from Google books
166:
180:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
510:). No further edits should be made to this page.
346:.) I would also probably heeding the advice of
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
192:the A7 speedy deletion criterion
1:
477:"We need an article about X!"
493:02:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
468:18:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
449:19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
433:02:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
416:02:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
396:05:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
382:02:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
360:03:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
334:04:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
311:00:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
300:18:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
281:17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
261:17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
233:17:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
209:13:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
63:02:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
527:
265:Do we consider TVTropes a
503:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
67:
44:The result was
485:Heavyweight Gamer
518:
505:
185:
184:
170:
118:
100:
61:
59:
53:
34:
526:
525:
521:
520:
519:
517:
516:
515:
514:
508:deletion review
501:
350:in this case.--
272:reliable source
267:reliable source
194:due to lack of
127:
91:
75:
72:
57:
51:
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
524:
522:
513:
512:
496:
495:
470:
453:
452:
451:
443:Metropolitan90
418:
400:
399:
398:
362:
336:
328:Metropolitan90
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
283:
236:
235:
188:
187:
124:
71:
66:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
523:
511:
509:
504:
498:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
450:
447:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
430:
426:
422:
419:
417:
413:
409:
408:Patrick Lucas
404:
403:Keep or Merge
401:
397:
394:
392:
388:
385:
384:
383:
379:
375:
370:
366:
363:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
337:
335:
332:
329:
325:
322:
321:
312:
309:
307:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
292:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
273:
268:
264:
263:
262:
258:
254:
253:
248:
246:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
226:
225:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
210:
207:
205:
201:
197:
193:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
65:
64:
60:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
502:
499:
481:"I like it!"
472:
455:
420:
402:
386:
364:
338:
323:
289:
250:
222:
214:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
45:
43:
31:
28:
460:Marasmusine
154:free images
425:BOARshevik
344:some anons
200:notability
198:asserting
77:Let's play
69:Let's play
58:barbarian
374:Sturmovik
369:speedruns
215:Weak Keep
52:Skomorokh
121:View log
439:sourced
387:Comment
352:Toffile
196:sources
160:WP refs
148:scholar
94:protect
89:history
473:Delete
456:Delete
446:(talk)
391:Veinor
339:Delete
331:(talk)
324:Delete
306:Veinor
276:Veinor
204:Veinor
132:Google
98:delete
46:delete
296:talk
257:talk
229:talk
175:JSTOR
136:books
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
489:talk
479:and
464:talk
441:. --
429:talk
421:Keep
412:talk
378:talk
365:Keep
356:talk
249:,
168:FENS
142:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
348:Neo
291:DGG
252:DGG
224:DGG
182:TWL
119:– (
491:)
466:)
431:)
414:)
406:--
380:)
358:)
298:)
259:)
244:,
231:)
162:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
55:,
487:(
462:(
427:(
410:(
376:(
354:(
294:(
255:(
227:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
123:)
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.