Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ModTheSims2 (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ModTheSims2

Was listed before with no consensus. Prod'd again, so relisting it for AfD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - very little change in the article between the last AFD and this one [1]. Yomangani^talk 11:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Week keep - alexa ~ 4000: [2]. MER-C 11:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Same as before. High ranked, notable in every way, could use some clean up. Havok (T/C/c) 23:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Havok (T/C/c) 23:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep; alexa rank is high and has media attention. — brighterorange (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Media attention...where? Can you point to me where this article has been mentioned in a magazine or something? As far as I can tell this is just a generic mod site - popular, but nothing to differentiate it from the hordes of other mod sites i.e. The Sims Resource, another high-profile site (ModTheSims2 is 3K and TSR is 9K, but the cutoff isn't at 5K or anything). Hbdragon88 07:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Read the article? It has two references, which are both from reliable sources. Havok (T/C/c) 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Those are NOT references. They are trivial media mentions. The actual nature of the sources are mentioned in the previous AFD. One is actually is a one sentence blurb that refers to a Brokeback Mountain sim that was listed as featured content. The other was a mention on a cable tv teach program. Neither are "multiple non-trivial published works" that are required in the notability guidelines for web content. --Kunzite 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment And yet from all The Sims 2 sites out there, they chose to feature a links to this site not some other The Sims 2 site. Havok (T/C/c) 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? They're still trivial media mentions. --Kunzite 04:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone above me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and the above reasons from the previous AFD. I'll add more on this later. --Kunzite 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've invited several people who have commented upon the merit of this article on the talk page and on the edit summaries to participate in this discussion. --Kunzite 21:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The shear size and scope of this website makes it rather notable. Its spawned 2 sites, and in a very short time has taken a very large part of The Sims fanbase. While Alexa rank isn't a criteria for inclusion, it does indicate that the website is popular and the information should be present. WP:WEB is only a guideline and not an a binding policy. It certainly doesn't seem to be written to address websites or other internet based things that would garner massive attention on the internet, but not the attention of mass media. Mass media isn't our litmus test anymore than google or Alexa are.--Crossmr 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of what Alexa ranks and the Google test indicate, this still fails WP:WEB. Since it's a gaming site (and has a very narrow focus at that) it is unlikely that nontrivial sources for its right to remain will be found any time soon. Garrett^Talk 01:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've stated my opinion earlier, and I'm standing by it. ModTheSims2 fails WP:WEB and WP:VAIN, and the information provided in the article in question is far too trivial for Wikipedia. Yes, there may be other website-related articles on Wikipedia which are trivial in nature, and they deserve to be deleted just as much as ModTheSims2. But I only contribute to websites that fall within my scope of interest, and seeing as The Sims 2 is one of my interests. ModTheSims2 may be a notable website in the Sims community, and can perhaps be mentioned in a blurb as a significant website to the modding community. But articles such as these will eventually be rendered obsolete and useless to both the Sims community, and the mainstream community at large, and therefore, in my opinion, has no place in Wikipedia as this article has no historical value, and the article provides absolutely nothing to those wanting to learn more about the Sims modding community. Sillygostly 03:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What part of the article fails WP:VAIN?--Crossmr 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Most of the content was written by the site owner. Which in itself, may not be a problem, but there are things like the mentioning that the adult sites were split off, but the reason was likely because paypal threatened to drop them. (Or at least that's the story of what happened at another sims download site.) It's not neutral but adding an assumption that the reason was because of paypal is original research--pulling the reason off of an internet forum doesn't jive with reliable sources documentation. The article also reads like an advertisment... but wait, there's more "...it too is powered by vBulletin"! --Kunzite 04:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:V/WP:RS, WP:WEB. Wickethewok 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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.