Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeFRaG

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 no evidence presented of coverage by reliable sources. W.marsh 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeFRaG

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V and WP:RS. Whispering^(talk/c) 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This article shouldn't be considered for deletion. It's well-written with attention to encyclopedic style and conventions, and due to the fact that it's a Quake III mod, not commercial software, it does not need to be written about in a notable publication or some such. There is a dedicated community of people online who play it; see the "external links" section of the article itself. Besides, WP:SOFTWARE is not an official policy.

--Ryodox 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment However, WP:V is an official policy. If information isn't in a reliable source, then it must go. Chances are, if something doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE, it probably won't meet WP:V either. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per Ryodox Pogo 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete First time I ever heard the claim that non-commercial software doesn't need verification, and I hope it's the last. Non-notable game mod. Fan-1967 21:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• I can see it now: WP flooded by unverifiable OpenSourceVanity (tm) entries. Claims to include: "Microsoft out of business as 94% of net users now surfing with Opera", "Using GCC to file income taxes shown to reduce cavities by 50%", "Duke Nukem Forever released - really!". Delete as vicarious vanity. -- MarcoTolo 22:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps, if the subjects were irresponsibly written about, but the article in question has been written with appropriate attention to encyclopedic convention.

• Strong keep. As per Ryodox. By the way, the game is very popular among Q3 and CPMA fans, it had and has also a large community. Just check qty of websites dedicated to this mod. Visor 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. A dozen unreliable sources does not equal one reliable one. Fan-sites are hardly suitable source material for an encyclopedia. Wickethewok 17:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn game mod. SchmuckyTheCat 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep encyclopedic. Shouldn't be hard to find sources. Moreover, the software itself can be used as a source. — brighterorange (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR 66.246.72.108 06:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have cleaned up article, added some reliable references and cleaned up external links section. I disagree it's non notable mod, and here are some proofs:
  • Number of downloads, for example Defrag 1.9 at http://www.planetquake3.net/download.php?op=fileid&lid=1723: 23585 downloads
  • Defrag section at OPC forums (that's one of the most, if not the most, popular Defrag forum) has 4'895 threads and 103'643 posts. [1]
  • Competitions, eg. Defrag World Cup, SDC, Breakdown [2]
  • There are lots of Defrag game movies [3] [4]
  • Defrag community is not at golden year, but it's still active. It has hundreds of fan and clan's pages (check Google or some Defrag websites links sections)
  • More than 1000 fan-created maps [5] [6]

If there is no reference to sentence or fact in article, mark it with fact template. I/or sb else will check trueness of it and, if it possible, add a proper reference. Visor 14:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• References to fan sites are nice and such, but they don't really qualify as reliable secondary sources. What we are looking for is something like an article about it in PC Gamer or Computer Gaming World or something like that. Other mods have been featured in popular online/print magazines, so this is not discriminatory against mods or anything. Wickethewok 18:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reference has been replaced to reliable one. Visor 21:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[7] might apply here - Estel ^(talk) 15:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Correct me if I'm wrong, but the above dispute was based on the reliability of information in the sources used (that is, the source themselves questioned the reliability of their own scattered information), not the reliability/legitimacy of the sources themselves. In any case, it states that there must be a large number of published sources discussing the subject, so I don't think its particular applicable. Wickethewok 20:18, 1 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.