Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgotten Hope (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 nice article but no sources appear to exist, see WP:V which is not optional. Websites and forums aren't generally considered reliable sources, this more a debate for WP:RS than an AfD. Anyway I will make the content to anyone who wants to transwiki this somewhere that wants it, under the GFDL. W.marsh 13:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forgotten Hope

Game mod that fails requirements for verifiability and reliable sources. Was previously kept on AFD despite failure to ever present requested sources. Delete as not verifiable. Wickethewok 18:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep With sources you mean that we should source statements like over 260 vehicles, well there is already a link to the website. Do you except academic sources or what? Even so, if the list should be removed, I see no point how it would fail as a stub.--Pudeo (Talk) 22:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I mean you should cite reliable sources. Reliable does not equate to academic, but it does equate to some sort of accountable source of information. I highly suggest you read WP:RS. For example, a popular gaming magazine would be a reliable source of information. Wickethewok 05:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yay, let's remove all content, years of editing and text, up-to date keepings then instead of digging up the 1 year old magazine articles that are badly outdated to source any more complicated info, as mods are updated frequently. For example, Forgotten Hope has gotten over 100 vehicles in past 2 years.. Indeed I got angry when I noticed they were removed, so excuse me. But anyhow, I will resist the removal of modifications from Wikipedia. --Pudeo
  • Keep this article, I've been reading through all of the complaints and deletion requests you and your comrades have made against videogames and mods in particular. It is quite clear you have some personal vendetta and opinions against the gaming world and you are taking it out on defenseless independent developers. Most of the articles more than fit the requirements requested of them and those that don't are willing to adjust to do so, but your unwillingness to compromise shows that it is personal. Stating that the official site from the developers themselves isn't sufficient citation, based solely on the fact that they are an independent developer and thusly aren't mainstream, is like saying Salvador Dali isn't a reliable source for his "Metamorphosis of Narcissus" painting, or Ryan Little isn't a credible source for his "Saints and Soldiers" film. Whether, you like it or not videogames are a huge part of and have great impact on today’s culture, and are strongly considered by those you love and work in the industry as an art form. I can understand not wanting Wikipedia to become an entertainment news website, it's an encyclopedia of the modern era. But taking videogames out of the picture is like wiping out history, or like deleting music from culture. Forgotten Hope, and several other mods have greatly contributed to the lifespan and cultural significance of the Battlefield franchise and gaming as a whole. If you disagree I suggest checking out a paper called "Am I a Mod or not? - An anaylisis of First Person Shooter modification culture" in which Forgotten Hope and several other mods are mention. The author (David B. Nieborg) even uses the official sites in his references along with several Wikipedia pages that are currently up for deletion... so don't let your personal opinions against videogames cloud your judgment of well collected factual and cited information. Thanks for your time and listening ~ Remick October 4, 2006

"The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." There are no reliable third-party sources, thus, Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic. Wickethewok 14:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But don't you agree that mods are bit different than some historical subject for example, or do you suggest me to mark all articles on your user page, which are mostly music, because they have no references? Forgotten Hope have been reviewed in maybe three magazines briefly. I can find up my copy of Tilt.tv magazine to reference the claim that Forgotten Hope is a Battlefield 1942 mod if it's going to change the article dramatically. Still, I prefer removing the parts that are "need sources" and mark it as a stub instead of removing 30 kbs of hand-written material. --Pudeo
  • As it is, I don't see what distinguishes this mod from the hundreds of other mods out there as far as third-party coverage goes. While primary sources (the game's website) can be acceptable sources of information, it is inappropriate for them to be the only source of information. Wickethewok 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • So what exactly are you looking for out of these third-party references... do you just what proof that it exists from some one other than the developers. Such as a highly reputable website http://mods.moddb.com/4402/forgotten-hope/ or a vastly viewed and edited forum http://www.totalbf2.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97722... Wikipedia defines verifiability as "that have already been published by reputable publishers" so the question is what is considered a reputable publisher. If PC/video game websites and forums aren't considered reputable publishers since they could be considered bias towards games... than music sites such a billboard.com or scientific journals such as the ones at worldscinet.com can't be considered reputable since they are bias to what they report on... I’d figure that these sources are the best sources since they do report on those subjects and as a result would know what they are talking about. Wikipedia's rules of verifiability are put in place to prevent people from publishing "original theories or original thoughts" on the site. Forgotten Hope neither an orginal theory or orginal thought by the editor, the primary link to the official website more than clarifies that. Any additional links are only reiterations of an already stated fact. ~ Remick
  • Reliable sources are pretty well-defined and discussed at WP:RS. As you are a new editor, I recommend you skim through some of this so you know why places like web forums aren't acceptable sources. Cheers and such! Wickethewok 18:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Per nom--M8v2 22:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I figured the forums link was going to be a bit of a strech, they are usually opinion based and not factual based, so rarely work as a credible source. I guess what I don't understand is why delete the article for such a minor and fixable problem as insufficient amount of sources. You said that primary sources can be acceptable, but you just want more. It has a primary source where the vast majority of the information is coming from anyway, these mod articales aren't opinionated or harmful, and as I said before mods are a major part of the gaming industry which is a huge part of the worlds culture. Under 'unattributed material' it states "

    Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the 'fact' template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding 'not verified' or 'unsourced' at the top of the page".

    So why ask for deletion, why not just mark as unsourced until the editor can obtain sufficient sources, there are plenty out there just takes a little looking. There are dozens of wikipedia pages with only one primary source if any. so why deny people of knowledge they may be looking for? Remick 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As I stated above, it is my belief that are no third party reliable sources, meaning its not a fixable problem as you suggest. Wickethewok 13:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Instead of deleting it, and thus ruining the work of many dedicated people who put forth countless hours in creating the page, why not just let them add the sources? It isn't exactly hard. (USMA2010 17:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Editors are perfectly welcome to add sources, but they have not done so after 2.5 years in this article's existence, nor have they done so in the past week. Since after all this time and this AFD, no one has cited any reliable sources, it seems reasonable to assume there aren't any. Wickethewok 20:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Wikibooks. These game guides are generally either unsourced, and thus OR, or sourced and copyvio by being taken from websites. OTOH they are popular, useful and I don't like wasting people's work. Wikibooks has guides and tutorials for many pieces of s/w and this seems to fit just fine, there. BlueValour 22:23, 7 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Forgotten_Hope_%282nd_nomination%29_c8d1.html"