Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelda: Source

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.

Speedy deleted per author's request (CSD G7). Phaedriel ♥ tell me - 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda: Source

Crystal ball article, non-notable game, possibly a vanity piece as well. (What's that word for fancruft+spam?) Fang Aili deleted article with same name within past 24 hours. -- Merope 02:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I created this article and I also work on the mod development team for the discussed mod. This article was made to inform people that such a mod exsists, as there are not enough mods ambitious enough to take on Zelda. Also, it should be noted that there are articles on mods that are even shorter and less informative than this one, such as the article on the Sven Co-Op mod. Also, the original version of this article was abandoned far before it was completed because I had to leave the place I was creating it at, and returned home to finish. This is not a crystal-ball article. All my refrences are available on the article. Read them before labling articles for deletion. This is noteable as it has a wider audence then you assume. It encompases the modding community and Zelda fans, which refers to alot of gamers as many enjoy the Zelda series. This is no different from any other article on Wikipedia - it is designed to provide information about something. It does just that and accurately. -- Spex 10:17, 5 August 2006

Comment. I am aware of the Zelda series.  ;) However, you should review the policies concerning vanity articles (since you've admitted to being a member of the mod team), as well as looking at the general requirements concerning notability. The criterion for whether an article's subject is notable is not how much information is contained in the article, but the nature of the subject itself. Also, I should point out that as this is still a work-in-progress, it definitely falls under the crystal ball category--the article is talking about a product that is not yet in existence. Please understand that the nomination is not a personal attack, or an attempt to disparage your project--I'm just trying to uphold WP's standards as best I can. I'd be happy to talk with you further here or on my talk page. Cheers.-- Merope 02:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment You compare the article to Sven Co-op, however Sven co-op is a polished finished mod that is quite notable within gaming communities. It is sad to note, then, that the sven article fails to mention it's many appearances in gaming magizines. Unless a prouct is being done by a major notable group, an unfinished product in the early stages of development is not notable. LinaMishima 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete vanity and admitted advert. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm informed of what a vanity article is, what is noteable, and what is a crystall-ball article. In the case you describe, any product that is talked about, but doesn't exsist, can be called a "crystal ball article". The importaint thing is that I have refrences to the shown information. This article IS noteable because, as I mentioned, there are very few Zelda mods available. As a matter of fact I only know of one, which is Zelda for Halo CE. As for vanity, is it only being considered that because I am on the development team? I'm not creating this article as an advertisement, but as a piece of information. It is a mod in development, which is perfectly valid. This is another way to note updates and information about it. That's what Wikipedia contains. Information and that's all this is. Not an advertisement, or a "prediction". Is is very real and very true. I know you're only trying to do what you think is right, but I believe that this is the wrong decision and that you're not thinking enough about the decision. -- --Spex 02:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment There are very few of me around, yet in wikipedia terms, I am not notable. Lack of quantity does not automatically equal notable. LinaMishima 02:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Avice It seems to me that you are too emotionally involved with the article to reasonably consider what would be best. Without a case for notariety, the article is likely to be deleted. But is that a bad thing? This is just an encyclopedia, not players of games or developers and artists. An if you want the article to stay, you would do better to try and make yourself notable by promoting Zela Source to magazines and the like. LinaMishima 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, and looks to be a long way off becoming notable, or even into substantial existance LinaMishima 02:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I am emotionally involved now because I am angred this topic was so quickly considered dismissable material. Just because this site is not made for gamers doesn't mean it cannot contain information for them. And why is it that this can be considered deletable simply because it is your opition (which official Wikipedia articles say that Wikipedia is not about opinions, but facts) that this is not something worth looking at. This mod cannot be advertised in magazines, because it is about a topic that it already copyrighted by Nintendo, and such public displays of the mod may not be well received by them legally. Yes, this is an encylopedia, and from what I can see, Wikipedia was made to contain as much factual information as possible. This is fact, this is a valid topic, and this if it is not noteable now, then there is nothing saying it can't be noteable in the future. I think it is noteable now, but if you seriously think that no one is interested in this enough to pick it up and read about it on Wikipedia, then you're mistaken. -- Spex 03:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was made to inform people that such a mod exsists... By this statement, you admitted that the article was an advertisement, which is against wikipolicy. That alone is enough to have the article deleted, much less its problematic crystal balling. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Anyway Just screw it. I'm not gonna win this fight and I think it's stupid that this was done way to fast. The article was never given the chance to grow and give more information. It's all gotta start somewhere, but I guess deletionists beleive that if an article isn't satisfactory right off the bat, it's invaluable forever. No hard feelings, but christ this really made my day suck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spex (talk • contribs) .

• comment if the article could have grown, I would have voted to keep and improve it. However the mod this article is about is currently in very early stages of development, with little results publically visable. Call me cynical, but I've seen a lot of mods ie off at this stage. However I do certainly hope that Zelda: source does not - it looks like a very good idea indeed. Once you have a full build up for download, you will have a stronger case for wikipedia inclusion. Best of luck with the mod! LinaMishima 04:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Your D key seems to have problems again. --ColourBurst 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Read the policy on personal attacks. Calling everyone who doesn't agree with you deletionists isn't going to help you. The problem isn't with not enough time; many articles go into the stub stage for months, even years. The problem is that the article doesn't meet fundamental policies that Wikipedia has to ensure quality: notability is one of them (even if it's not official, many people use it), and verifiability with reliable sources is another. Your article can't meet either of these (you have references, but they all point to moddb, which would be considered a primary source, since it is the site of the mod). And don't take this personally - this isn't a judgement against you or your mod. Hey, even DotA Allstars got nominated, and it's a very popular mod. --ColourBurst 04:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a place for announcements or to recruit programming help. I'm certain there are gaming sites/lists/etc. where this would be appropriate. --Brianyoumans 04:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A mod that isn't even out yet is not notable. If this comes out and becomes big then make an article, but not before then. Konman72 11:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This strongly appears to be a mere vanity article. Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Peephole 14:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)--
• Keep Could use a clean up, other then that I see no reason for its removal. Havok (T/C/c) 15:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete any hobbyist project in the early stages of development. — brighterorange (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Because of the low rate of completion, unfinished amateur games are pretty much all crystal ball. When complete, they still need notability. Basically, if it's finished, lket's see if anyone cares and make an article or not on that basis. For now, this doesn't belong. Ace of Sevens 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I wasn't refering to everyone who wants the article down as a deletionist. I just had noticed that a good number were. Anyhow, I suppose it is perfectly reasonible. To say it can never be noteable is not reasonible, but comments about waiting for it to be further along in development sounds just fine. One can wait. But please, stop calling this a vanity article, because it was not for that purpose. Otherwise, the comments now seem reasonible, and thank you for those who wished good luck and gave encouragement. As for those who didn't...well, we'll see if this vote comes up again when the time comes to re-make this article. -- Spex -- (I dunno what the hell the time is >.> ) Aug. 5, 06 (One thing that concerns me is juding on noteablility. How can you judge based on something that cannot be measured? It's an opinion, which Wikipedia is not about. It's about facts. I'm guessing this is why it is not official standard.)
• Delete per nom. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 13:32, 6 August 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.