Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City17: Episode 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. If it becomes notable later on, it can be re-created at that time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City17: Episode 1

City17: Episode 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The subject is not notable, because it isn't released yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dekisugi (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Delete with no prejudice against recreation when the game's released. It may meet WP:N when it's released, it may not, but the preliminary material is there. PeterSymonds | talk 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:Much like any Mod that I've seen within the Wiki, I'd have to say they've all been planed for deletion. Oddly MINERVA (mod), has not, which is quite odd. However As a developer of the mos itself, I can;t come across being reasonable without touching the present line of Bias. I voted for Keep, simply as this mod is likely to be released in the time allotted, which of course isn't currently stated, but soon will. Aside that, the page itself serves as a time line of events that have taken place for the mod's development. And more Importantly, it serves as a good foundation of information for the mod too, rather than just blatant advertising. --MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    comment - "...it is likely to be released..." violates WP:V. As for other mods, WP:WAX holds in this discussion. Dekisugi (talk)
    comment - "...it is likely to be released..." Was never stated, and after two Years of development I can assure it Will, be released. There is enough content also to prove that, sadly I can not yet upload any images as of yet, due to the New User policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTwoVideoCards (talk • contribs) 10:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    The quote was your own statement (read again your comment above). It's simple actually. Follow WP:V policy, WP:NOTE guidelines and make sure the article contains what Wikipedia is. At the moment, the article is not and should be deleted. Dekisugi (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    I belive I handed that the wrong way, and instead meant I had never set a release date on the Wiki page, even though one does exist for June.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I would like to see this article stay as it is an import history is this Mod's life, It serves as an extension onto City17 and shows some of the development that has taken place. --Jonoxplor (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    — 121.210.176.101 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Jonoxplor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't say to that really, but this page is listed in several other places at the time, one being the main website, which gains about 140 visitors a day. Not alot, but this could have been any one of them.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Where's the evidence this mod is notable? I'm not sure one page from ModDB is enough. Unlike MINERVA (mod), there are no third-party independent sources asserting notability. "The mod being released on time" has got to be one of the most random reasons for keeping the article I've ever heard. If you can magic some reliable sources asserting notability from somewhere and use them in the article, I'll change my vote. Until then, gotta be delete. Una LagunaTalk 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find any reliable sources to assert notability. It should be noted that the only two keep rationales to date are ILIKEIT and OTHERSTUFF. Just because you like it or find it interesting doesn't warrant inclusion in the project, and the fact that other, similar things in the project doesn't mean anything. Celarnor Talk to me 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The only existing Third party resource is PlanetPhillip Which was not published by me.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Truly this page isnt as absurd as this one: [1], now this should have been deleted.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:Quit being snobs, it's a single extra page on a website where having the extra page would cause no harm other than to inform people. The fact you care enough to even file the "report" to get such a thing deleted shows a lot about you. Also if I have to keep an objective viewpoint as some sort of backwards rule, I refuse.--Jman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.191.99 (talk • contribs)
    — 72.39.191.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment It show nothing. If you want to advertise do it somewhere else. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep:This is pathetic. "because it isn't released yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Wikipedia has umpteen articles on unreleased games, does that mean they should be deleted? No, because they are giving PRE-RELEASE information. If you have problems with certain aspects, work to fix them, don't just remove the entire article. -- MrBlank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.104.94 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    — 211.26.104.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Most of the are games not mods. Mods tends disappear overtime. Unless this mod got wide coverage like for example Black Mesa or MINERVA then this mod can stay. Till then this violates wikipedia rules. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I know the guy running this gig, he's serious about this mod, It will come out. If you don't think so, if you seiously think this mod wil not come out, ask youself, is this wiki really hurting anything? Why would we destroy this perfectly harmless site, I mean, it's pretty sad, some people have nothing better to do then eliminate something that doesnt have a negative effect towards anyone. this mod will no doubt be a good one, and wikipedia will only help advertise when it's done. --Dylan —Preceding unsigned comment added by No00dylan (talk • contribs)
    — No00dylan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If you want to go the rout of deleted all content without notable referances we might as well delete half-life 2 episode 3's page. and duke nukem forever could be called heresay as well. heck, lets delete the ancient history section too. because all of these are based partly on conjecture. city17 is on the wiki cause we want a record of it all. of cource wikipedia isnt a crystalball, we didnt post questions on the c17 page, we posted our facts. games are games, so are mods. is shivering isle not a game cause it requires the original oblivion. and to simplify a fix for the people that want it deleted, just dont look at it. if you dont like the thought that you might generate some extra fandom for our game mod then remove wiki from the web cause someone could research porn on here and become adicted to it, or the same for alcohol or smoking. you need to judge based on whats best for the wiki and the community, not if you think it fits into your idea of the wiki. if i remember correct, wiki's are for the community and public. if this is allowed to proceed then it takes a huge step back in the wiki's standards, and bars it as anouther entity that allows and accepts the supresment of ideals and free speach. because like all articals on the site if we didnt care for them we wouldnt write them, so how can we or anyone be object.-Clannerjake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.64.136 (talk • contribs)
    — 12.218.64.136 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep What is so wrong about this mod? I mean, it's a mod... right, it's like a game, you just need another game to play this game. And this game, i will say, has nothing wrong in it. Posting an article about the mod to show of the people of how the game would look like is just normall, it is completely the same as telling what is Half Life 2 or anything else like that is about. The mod is not released yet, so people wanna know more about it! I know that you got some problems of someone saying that 70% or something like that of the information on wikipidia is wrong, but this is not wrong! and does nothing bad! i dont even understand a reason for it to be deleted... plus, this is an nice mod, it tells the life of a rebel from the Half Life story, all the way from hl2, to hl2ep2, and i think it is also a good source of knowing more about Half Life, and even thought it's not yet released, we already know the story! i say it should just stay, it doesnt make any harm. --StalkDude343 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.241.234 (talk • contribs)
  • Note also, let me point out that GestaltG has stated that wikipedia jilted him on his web page attemps, further, he also is the main harasser to many of the page deletion attemps, like the one for sourceforts. to conclude that he is following a personnal agenda would not be hard to come to terms with. his actions speak for themselves. why is that he is on so many remove lists. maybe we should start a list of his actions and debate on if he is of sound judgement to be a wiki member.-Clannerjake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.241.234 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    — 189.100.241.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Dekisugi (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Note for closing admin - the above signed Clannerjake uses different IP addresses (see the above one also). Dekisugi (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete And ten demerits for incompetent sock-puppetry. Also, people who suck at english but speak it as a primary language make me laugh....oops, NPA. Hmmm. Oh well. Let's just say that the paragraphs above me pretty much sum up this. It is like they are just going through the list and trying each one. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
there was never a reason to put people down at all. That was uncalled for, and is not a big issue in the argument. The argument is.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Block Socks Boy, they sure are obvious. Cache isn't up yet, so I'll copy this here in case they FINALLY get clever and delete the evidence:

Wikipedia is growing, and it looks like the seed its using is pure fast-growing retard. various wiki editors are on the assault, calling c17 free advertising and non-sense. many developers use wiki’s and to note wikipedia also writes on things that are more or less based on conjecture and hearsay. like all of its ancient histories witch to most, no notable texts remain talking about them. so, is this just another example of how humanity tends to burn its histories. hl2 dm pro was hit, sourceforts was hit, and now us. Take a stand for your mod, and stand by us. In the Link below, you can post your opionon, and vote to keep the mod by adding *”’Keep”’ at the start of your paragraph.

Seriously now. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Can IP users vote?. I thought only established users can vote. From above voters most of them either are new users and IP voters.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Presuming that you accept the "fact" that this debate isn't a vote, sure IP users can make arguments. I think the running consensus is that the weight carried by an IP users opinion against a registered user is less, but in this case it doesn't even matter. Their statements are so incoherent as to be totally irrelevant. Protonk (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then how would this discussion end If I had the only say to effect the outcome?--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If the article belonged on wikipedia, it would end in keep. If the article didn't belong, it would end in delete.  !Votes canvassed wouldn't impact it. Are you suggesting that it is somehow proper to canvass for votes? Protonk (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I've never argued before towards wiki standards, but what I am saying is that the fact that the mod would need to be overly popular is ridiculous. Aside the fact developing a mod is already hard enough. Getting into something of that status is pure luck. What I mean is that still, I might not be able to win. If no one else had made a point on it.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I belive that even Sourcefortse had something like this originally on their Forums, because how down right ridiculous this all is. How else would we make a point if I'm the only one arguing. If so, then this argument would be one sided, and I'd have no chance on making my Point understandable. I ask for you to take a look at the SourceForts Page Discussion, and read the archived deletion argument, and notice how many users joined the Wiki for the sole purpose of voicing their opionon.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How ridiculous all what is? Let's presume for a minute that you are in the right, that this article belongs in wikipedia. Surely, if that were the case, you could convince us of it. Some of us would see reason. There would be no reason for the creator of this mod to canvass for votes on his website. The debate could proceed on the merits of the article. And, frankly, NONE of their contributions help to make any keep argument more understandable. The whole thing might as well have been copy/pastes of all the wrong things to say. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then Why should a mod Not be on a wiki, is there a single reason. What I don't understand is for a subject to be on a wiki is of two things. It need to be either popular, or of some importance. What I mean by this, is it seems we would need to be featured in one or more magazines just to be able to even have a slight chance on the wiki. This is what you are asking of, and its very hard to do so. What I understand is that the Wiki has no limitation of space, and it is for the Community. Therefore it should stay, is why I say Keep. It hardly does any harm, and has a sole purpose for anyone whom would like to read about the mod, or would like to know more about it. The wiki is an encyclopedia, not a "you need to be awesome in order to be listed here website" I simply ask to allow this page to stay, but other would vote it for deletion, but why? It's a simple page, it doen't have any advertising, and it servers as a purpose about the mods history and what it is about.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it needs to be Notable. It needs to be Verifiable and it needs to have a Neutral point of view. Once it is those three things, it can be on wikipedia and I'll defend it any day. Until it is all of those three things, it needs to be deleted. There are clear policies that exist in order to ensure that wikipedia remains an important resource. Once people see that anything can get on here, the image if it will tarnish, and that is hard to replace. I'm sorry you feel differently, but thems the breaks. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then what would you say make this article all of that? What would the Page require in specific terms to be up to the base.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Try the three links I gave first. Then try WP:TOYS for specific guidelines (although these are just proposed). But honestly, if there hasn't been a source that has covered City 17 in significant detail, you are probably our of luck. Protonk (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The only Source I can comment on, and that has gotten outside coverage on the mod, is that of Planet Phillip. Aside that, because the mod is not yet released, theres not much else that can be done, Planet Phillip at the moment is te only site that talks about City17 in detail, and later this week, we might have an interview, which might add to notability, but yet I'm not sure.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment well you let protonk vote and hes established that all he can do is insult peoples spelling. isnt there a wiki rule about that. Protonk we werent trying any sock-puppetry, that thing you feel up your butt is your head. if you want to sound like an idiot and give rise to people saying idiot seed was planted in wikipedia. then go ahead and keep talking. we area a community. so we post on other sites as well about the purity grade of idiots that go around trying to delete other peoples works cause they feel it doesnt fit there ideals. its going to be on planetphilip as well. and many many more... i hope that makes you spazz out, america has a term for you, its called 'terrorist', and i hope the minute you need some help and ask that everyone runs you into the ground and calls you names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.64.136 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoa. this is awesome. Keep it coming. This is pure gold. Protonk (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue towards name calling, but I simply debate the fact of notability.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Protonk "Civility is a code of conduct for editing on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as, personally-targeted, belligerent behavior and rudeness that results in an atmosphere of conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another."

"And ten demerits for incompetent sock-puppetry. Also, people who suck at english but speak it as a primary language make me laugh....oops,"-protonk "Their statements are so incoherent as to be totally irrelevant."- Protonk you are in violation of the wiki civility code. so stash it.-ClannerJake

I'm sure WP:CANVASS and WP:SOCKPUPPET is in there somewhere. Maybe you can quote them for me too. Protonk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment i could but sense you can type i think you can read. but if you wana try and draw pointless acusations go ahead, i respect your right to be totally wrong. the fact of the matter is you have been flamming me. i should remove your posts, its vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.64.136 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This Page may be deleted, after much flaming...(sadly, and unintended) I'll try again later, and post this mod when theres more actuality towards it and, and is also released. I supposed I was a bit hasty in adding it soon, but should of had more on it. Also no more discussion shall continue based on this issue until it is later brought up for another reason. --MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WOOOOAAAA!! I slept and woke up this morning with badly smelled socks here. I'll put some spa account tags later. Dekisugi (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Will it be fine to add this later, upon release?--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    Well, as long as the article conforms with WP:NOTE guidelines, then yes. The most crucial things are non-trivial third-party reliable secondary sources. I'd suggest to wait for the subject to get some publications, reviews, news releases, etc. When they are available, I'm sure somebody will create the article here. Note that when any subjects are notable, they don't need WP, but WP does need to create articles for them. We're writing an encyclopaedia, remember? Dekisugi (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks the multiple, in-depth and reliable sources needed to establish notability. Someoneanother 12:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of reliable independent sources.-- danntm T C 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article is too early. It needs reliable third party sources in order to prove that the mod is notable. As it's still in development, this is unlikely. Maybe, per WP:SCRABBLE, the mod may become notable after release, in which case the article can be recreated. For now, it should be deleted as per WP:RS, WP:N and WP:VGazimoff WriteRead 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unreleased mod without large pre-release press. Holy puppets, Batman! BJTalk 06:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The references provided are not enough to satisfy WP:N. If it attracts critical attention from the gaming media then there's no prejudice against recreating it. Marasmusine (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2008 (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.