Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing Information (Half-Life 2 mod)

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. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Information (Half-Life 2 mod)

Article gives no indication of satisfiying WP:SOFTWARE, WP:V, or WP:RS Whispering^(talk/c) 12:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I see no case for deletion here: WP:SOFTWARE is merely a proposed guideline, the article is sourced (and even it weren't, then it would only require sourcing, not deletion) and the links provided certainly do not fail WP:RS, since they include respectable gamesites like Gamespot. Please stick to Wikipedia:deletion policy for reasons that are ground for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article is not sourced according to the reliable sources criteria (and before you say that's just a guideline, WP:V, which is policy, uses the text); to be truly sourced, the sources have to be inline, but even so, there are only primary sources, which do not match WP:RS or WP:V. Gamespot only offers a download and is therefore not a source (it would count as a web directory in this circumstance. If it actually wrote an article on this mod, that would be different). An article can fail WP:V and be deleted that way if there's no indication that it can meet WP:V. Too many articles on this site already lack sourcing, let's not create more. ColourBurst 00:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, mods are generally not-notable and this one doesn't seem to be an exception. If there is a lack of third-party reliable sources available on the subject that is grounds for deletion, and I'm looking at the article and I'm not seeing them. Recury 13:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Clearly does fail WP:RS/WP:V. The Gamespot listing is quite trivial at best. Also, its quite clearly vanity if you look at the very bottom of the article. Wickethewok 15:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Recury. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I essentially agree with Recury on this one. I see no information that demonstrates that this is an important, popular, or notable mod.--Isotope23 16:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Few mods are notable, and this doesn't appear to be one of them... hmmm, this makes me feel like playing some Thievery UT... Garrett^Talk 01:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Kinslayer 08:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm on the mod team, and all this information is correct. I'm the source, there just isn't a link I can post to that effect. This mod is going places, already popular on certain boards, give it a month or two and I expect it to become very popular indeed with the next release. Please save the article until that time.LaCabra 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Wikipedia tends to believe more in "first be famous, then have you get an article" kind of thing. For example, I opposed inclusion of Black Mesa, because the thing isn't even out yet, but they have game mag mentions, ModDB awards, alleged commendations from Valve etcetera; who am I to argue against that? People will probably remember them even if it turns out to be vapourware. If Missing Information can't provide such mentions, then I'm afraid we can't really establish the notability. "Certain boards" probably won't help. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The mod only has "public test" version out. Every mod that hits 1.0 release probably deserves an article, but beta-stage stuff is extremely debatable, especially if it has not gotten media attention. Until then, time for a blurb in "List of unreleased HL2 mods" or whatever. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A mod of this magnitude that even has been in a magazine and has had a release deserves an article.Gurluas 10:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Gurluas

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.