Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firearms (computer game)

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The result of the debate was withdrawn — Adrian Lamo ·· 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firearms (computer game)

• Delete - Unnotable mod. Should be deleted unless solid evidence of notability is provided. --nlitement ^[talk] 23:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This was the number 3 mod after CS and TFC for halflife 1 until DoD came out. It was on contract with valve for distribution with all new HL cd's I believe starting with game of the year edition. It was featured in PC Gamer magazine. Won mod of the year from PCGamer and runner up game of the year for 2000. Do a google search, and you'll come up with hundreds of hits. Go to forums.worldatwarmod.com, and you'll see a huge following on the Firearms section there for it. Did the user do any research at all before listing this, or is this a WP:POINT? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This mod was among the most enduring Half-Life mods ever created, and still has a following to this day, nearly eight years after first being released. It also features a very innovative bipod system that I have yet to see used in another game, which allows bipods to be deployed at any point on a map. MrFiend497 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Whoever believes Firearms is an unnotable mod must either have a very short memory or not be aware of the facts listed above. Firearms was one of the premiere Half Life 1 mods and even today, eight years after its initial release, a strong player base supports it. Firearms is also the innovative game that brought the reinforcement (AKA, ticket) system, in game parachutes, a massive inventory of armaments, and true to life firemodes into computer games. Valve themselves offered to purchase Firearms during its prime. The only thing unnotable about this game is how interested the generic Counter-Strike player is with it. Natrapsmai 23:55, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies Sorry, I didn't check into the article very well. As you see, the most played Enemy Territory (3rd most played FPS) modification got AfD'd (the article itself is good) because someone thinks it's unnotable. Yes, and I'm talking about people who don't know a tiny bit about games making useless bullshit into the deletion talk. I provided them with: magazine scans plus referance to two magazines featurin the mod with a full text and files included on a DVD, over 8 external communities and fansites, several leagues and clanwar meeting channels on Quakenet, number of players (300-400 at any given time, also taking to notice that it's the first _test version_ with irritating bugs which haven't been updated for over a year now! (0.49 will come out at the end of March, so you, as honorable gamers, know what would happen then - people haven't forgotten this mod; never, I haven't, I just don't play because it hasn't been updated, and oh-oho-ho HOW MANY players like me will come back when the new update hits download servers, with tons of improvements - take the number of players registered at the forums: 2000, so how many players do register at the forums? Maybe 50-60%, so it's your move now to decide its notability)). So, per their manners in handling notability, I decided to quickly check up some _definitely_ unnotable mods for BF/HL/etc and listed them all for AfD (if True Combat: Elite is actually worth an AfD, then why wouldn't they be?). The thing is, that I didn't really read the articles and thought that 11-14 total AfDs from a very large list of mods wouldn't bring up so many "bad targets", but I was wrong. I'll remove the AfD. Apologies for this. --nlitement ^[talk] 16:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the AfD from the page per the original poster's decision. I'd advise the original poster to remember not to make a WP:POINT. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no reason not to WP:AGF. I don't think the nominator was trying to make a point or be disruptive -- they probably just didn't know whether it was notable, and now they do :)

— Adrian Lamo ·· 21:31, 1 March 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.