Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movie Battles

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 Keep - there is agreement that it scrapes through WP:SOFTWARE and there was also a request for reliable sources which a Sky News article and the PC Gamer article just about fill. 99% of the content of the article could still be removed on the basis of being original research though, so it needs cleaning up and could be proposed for deletion again if no work is done on this (and please check WP:RS to see what reliable sources are). - Yomangani^talk 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Battles

Contested prod, article doesn't meet WP:SOFTWARE and is also a how to guide/game guide which is not allowed on Wikipedia Whispering^(talk/c) 18:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete the article. The modification is one that deserves no notation and should be removed from the memories of everyone.

* Strong Keep - Featured in PC Gamer UK, even included on CD. Notable, most popular JKA mod. How-to article feel is being cleaned up, and just three days ago I asked for comment on this article. Cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. In addition, WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, not a rule. Not to break WP:AGF, but I question the spirit of this nomination - user has been involved in a series of mod deletions recently (see his talk page). Wooty 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It meets WP:SOFTWARE barely but it's still a game guide. Whispering^(talk/c) 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Again, "needs cleanup" is not a valid reason for deletion. If you'd review the history of the article, you'd see that extensive work is being done to improve the prose of the article. Wooty 22:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Appearing on the CD doesn't make it notable. An absolute assload of stuff makes it onto cover CDs, single player mods, random maps etc. What would make it notable would be multiple references from reliable sources, PC Gamer is one of them, but it'd be nice to work more in. - Hahnchen 01:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Further note - Actually, I just took a look at that source, and its not that great. It's absolutely tiny, I thought you were referring to a full page review, or even a half page review. If thats the best that you can come up with then I would vote to delete. You can see another AFD for a game mod where I've argued to keep. If you can promise further upcoming sources, then it'd be OK. - Hahnchen 01:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - That mod also had no cited sources and its like a half page of text...Yzmo 08:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Right now it doesn't, but if you see the AFD, there's multiple print references, including a double page spread in a French gaming magazine. - Hahnchen 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Movie Battles was in PC Gamer.. which is a very big gaming magazine.Yzmo 20:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is that u have NO VALID REASON for deletion, thats the point. No citing is just no valid reason, it would be better if u could say exacly why u want it deleted, and just why u want to clean up the game mods section...Yzmo 13:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment there still aren't multiple external sources, Tewfik^Talk 16:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - But thats no valid reason to delete the whole article ;), but im aware of this, and im trying to put in some more sources, but that isnt so easy as the text is written by people who play the mod and write from what they see/know from ingame..Yzmo 17:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Is this discussion dead??Yzmo 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I respectfully disagree with the assertion that "No citing is just no valid reason" to delete. WP:Verifiability clearly states, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." The lack of such sources stems from the fact that the subject does not yet meet the notability requirements of WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services. Also, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a video game guide. --Satori Son 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - But at least half of all the articles on wikipedia have no sources or anything like that, and there ARE some sources in the arcticle, but its hard to write about a mod without using the info u have in ur head which u got while playing..Yzmo 16:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Yzmo, that's invalid reasoning. Satori, WP:CORP does not apply to game modifications. As stated above, Movie Battles does pass WP:SOFTWARE (though barely), and cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. Wooty 01:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Upon what authority do you state so unequivocally that a game mod program is not a product or service covered by WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services? Once the proposed WP:SOFTWARE becomes a guideline, that will apply, but until then WP:CORP is the appropriate standard for notability. But more importantly, my opinion was based primarily on failure to meet WP:V, which you have neglected to address. --Satori Son 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• - Comment You can verify the Article by playing the mod.Yzmo 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - A very limited feature in PC Gamer doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or WP:RS. If you have to verify the article by "playing the mod", it probably shouldn't have its own article. Wickethewok 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Satori Son. wikipediatrix 18:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This article has been on wikipedia for at least 2 years now.. and NOW you want it deleted, and why isn't a bad article better then no article at all?Yzmo 09:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - What Yzmo said is plain logic, a bad article is much better than no article. Simple as that. Dirk Lightstar 15:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete [Cid88] If your going to enforce this policy with the Moviebattles page, you may as well enforce it with the Nuclear Dawn, Natural Selection, Science and Industry, Alien Swarm, True Combat Elite (which is known to site no sources, but has no deletion notice), etc mod pages. TO be frank, very very few mods fit Wikipedia's rules, so you may as well delete all the ones that don't fit, or don't delete at all. As it is, the mb page is longer and actually sites a source, unlike some of the pages I listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.233.200.208 (talk • contribs).

• Have patience. Many editors have been going through mod articles and finding the ones failing guidelines and policies. If you wish to help with this process, you are of course welcome to. I assure you no one has anything against "moviebattles" personally. Wickethewok 22:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - In looking for citations I've pretty much come to the conclusion there aren't any, and the article should be deleted, even if it is notable within the JKA community. Abstain - New sources. Wooty 20:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Don't Delete [ACiD]How about moviebattles.de or ModDB for verification. As one of the developers I can vouch for this articles accuracy (and so can our official on-site guide), and I must say I fail to see how a mod with hundreds of thousands of downloads, millions of hits cannot be notable when it has had a pc gamer mention/mini review and cover cd, a 2 page spread in the french magazine, and been the full focus of a sky news article on mods (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-13209702,00.html for your reference). To make matters worse there are mod information pages hosted on wikipedia about mods that I personally know have had only a few hundred players at best, and seem spared from this sort of bullying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.1.31.209 (talk • contribs). — 86.1.31.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - Vouching for an articles accuracy yourself does not make it vefifiable, a reputable third party source must be used, and articles written from one's own knowledge (without such sources) can be deleted as original research. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - [ACiD] As far as I am aware(till now having no involvement in this wiki) the article was written primarily from the guide hosted upon our own website, www.moviebattles.com, but as mentioned moviebattles.de is a third party source that could be cited, and on the notability front for wp:soft guidelines pcgamer and sky news are hardly questionable sources, I also might add that comparisons with mods such as science and industry really betray a lack of knowledge about the video game industry, given that hl experienced media sensationalism, while jka is a practical blackout.
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This is Wooty, too lazy to sign in. Another source has been added. 63.227.185.86 03:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Now it looks like you scan though the rules of Wikipedia to find one which allows you to delete the Movie battles article.Yzmo 10:16, 15 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.