Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MVPMods

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 of the discussion was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MVPMods

Delete. The article has absolutely no legitimate basis for existing within Wikipedia's database, for it was clearly created based on an individual's biased perspective on an internet website. The article contains many unnecessary references to certain individuals and actually derides them within its text. This is absolutely unnecessary and should not be tolerated. Very little factual information is being displayed, for the article is filled with opinionated, idiosyncratic statements with the sole intention of promoting the website. The absence of a neutral point of view throughout it, the inability to verify many of the article's statements, and the fact that it was written from an idiosyncratic perspective with the intention of advertising the webpage on Wikipedia, thus, legitimizes its deletion. Furthermore, one can visit the website's forum itself at www.mvpmods.com and discover that the creation of this page has clearly been an immature advertising campaign in order to arouse amusement amongst its members. Themaroons 18:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

    • commentIt is the duty of the voters here to change their votes from deletion to keep. The article is cited in the media unlike other forums found on wikipedia. The initial creation of the article, far before this version, was done without the members of the site's knowledge for purposes dealing with information, not advertising. People here hinge their deletion arguments on "dopesn't satify wiki requirements" or "too much pov statements." These have all been deleted and citation has been added. Change your vote, change your reasoning, or admit that you have no interest in sticking to wiki's actual rules and purpose: information for the people. --wikilagata, 7 July 2006
  • Delete fails WP:WEB, 715 Ghits, Alexa in the 90,000 ballpark. Ahem. --DaveG12345 18:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable website Wildthing61476 18:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually, I like a little immaturity. ;-) The site is the kind of thing you like if you like that kind of thing, but an Alexa ranking of 91,836 and no assertion in the article of anything that would meet the WP:WEB criteria means this one is going, going, gone. JChap 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Alexa scores and Ghits are not listed in WP:WEB, The site has been mentioned in a few computer games magazines including Computer Games magazine June 2005 on pg 77. Krawhitham 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment against vote From what I understand your vote should not even be counted since you are very clearly a major contributor to the article. This is, in fact, according to wikipedia's policy Razum2000 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment for vote That doesn't subtract from its legitimacy.
  • Comment against vote Same reason as Razum's. Seems that those who support MVP Mods are either contributors or their friends. While I think the site should get a mention in the article for the game that it's based on, this attempt to create an article is simply for promoting the site. Also, there's seems to be implication that those who are for keeping the articles are somehow "management" or "bosses" of Wikipedia who are holding the good guys down. I sense immaturity is running rampant here. -- CRiyl 01:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment against comment against vote So, those who are interested in Subject X are unsurprisingly interested in Subject X in Wikipedia. And People who participate in Subject X outside wikipedia should be ignored as they are biased. Gotcha. Only those entirely ignorant of the world of sports-videogaming should judge.Corinh 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If by "Subject X" you mean MVP Baseball, then yes as it is a well-known franchise that has (p)reviewed by many in the video game media and was a subject (or victim, depending on your POV) of the sports game licensing wars. If you mean modifying video games in general then there's already an article for it. I don't see anything wrong with contributing to either MVP Baseball or game mods article to illustrate how places like MVP Mods extend the game experience given those contributions conform to policy. Nobody's judging; stay cool. -- CRiyl 03:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a legitimate website, for a legitimate community, for a legitimate videogame. Websites and much smaller geeky star trek forums have wiki entries. MVPmods was on page 77 of the June 2005 Computer Games magazine. It is the largest community of its kind, it has a quality entry which has the community's history, it is definitely a keeper.wikilagata 16:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:WEB notes that "the article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria (i.e., the WP:WEB criteria) via inlined links or a 'Reference' or 'External link' section". I see no such proof, so it fails WP:WEB. The other statistics constitute additional relevant information. --DaveG12345 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:WEB requires that the site have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." [emphasis added.] A mention in one mag does not establish sufficient notability. JChap 20:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:WEBThe content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine Krawhitham 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Notice that he stressed the words "subject" and "multiple". Can you prove that the web site was the SUBJECT of MULTIPLE articles? Razum2000 20:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment you are confusing #1 with #3
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster
VS
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Krawhitham 20:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, have just seen this bit of the discussion above - is it being claimed above that the content of this website (i.e., its actual mod files in this case) have been "distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"? Is that what is being claimed here (because that's what WP:WEB3 is referring to)? Please provide some evidence if this type of distribution of the site's content has taken place. Thanks. --DaveG12345 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is all of this proved in the article, as WP:WEB insists? If not, it fails WP:WEB.--DaveG12345 21:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The links section contains two Computer Games articles, only one of which mentions (but does not feature) MVPmods. Please note that I have been trying to help you here by telling you what you have to include in the article so that it meets Wikipedia standards. JChap 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree with JChap. I have been contributing to this web site for quite some time and just cannot see how this article can be included in its encyclopedia database. Yes, certain web sites that are NOTEWORTHY (IGN, Yahoo, Google) should certainly be the subjects of articles. I have never heard of MVPMods, however, prior to locating its page today. Failure to cite its significance further justifies its deletion. Themaroons 21:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, well if YOU have never heard of it, it must not be worthy of inclusion. I personally don't think there should be any entires about modding and mods for any games in the wiki but there are. There's loads of entries about mods and sites for first person shooters [1]but because the best selling baseball game of all-time is not popular among Wikipedians it becomes not worthy of inclusion (example - it is not even listed as a 'Notable release' here [2]. MVP 2005 is a popular game amongst the general public, many of whom are not as internet-savvy as those in the first person shooter communities. The PS2 version alone was the 7th highest selling game in the US last year[3], (The mvpmods site is a site devoted to PS2, Xbox and PC versions of the game) I have yet to see anyone 'expert' in the world of sports video-gaming disagree with the notion that mvpmods is the most popular site for video game baseball modding. Also there are no big ign or gamespy awards for mods and sites like there are for first person shooters. And it is also difficult for major sites like ESPN and others to refer to the site because of a concern about being seen to tacitly endorse possible licencing violations with various 'unlicenced' players (Barry Bonds) and things like beer advertisments being included in some of the mods. Corinh 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If the ARTICLE does not prove that it passes WP:WEB, it fails WP:WEB. This has nothing to do with popularity among Wikipedians. This has to do with proving notability as per agreed guidelines as they stand at this time. The burden of proof is on the article to demonstrate it is a notable subject, not on Wikipedians to prove it isn't. If the activities of the website are such that they potentially break game licenses and cause potential legal issues for reliable reporting sources (as seems to be claimed here), then why on earth should Wikipedia be left open to those same potential legal problems by including an article about the site on here? Wikipedia insists on reliable third party sources exactly because it wants verifiability, which guards against any potential legal issues. This is not a blog hosting site for mavericks and avant-garde niche artistes who are otherwise put down by The Man and his awkward insistence on the Law, this is an encyclopedia, beholden to applicable laws itself. Might I also suggest another reason for a lack of reporting in those reliable third-party sources? Perhaps the site is, in fact, not notable enough? --DaveG12345 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It does, a piece has been provided from Computer Games Magazine ABOUT the site. You say the article is not about the site, but it is, if you actually read it. Wikipedia has no legal problems refering to the site because wikipedia does not have a commercial relationship with Major League Baseball. The burden of proof seems to be much lower for games with a large following amongst the 'hardcore' internet community. It seems a mention in a magazine is all they need.Corinh 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment With respect it does not. "1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Multiple = more than one. And, BTW, "I" have said nothing about the article, and "I" have read it. There's no point commenting on the article because it's still only one, isn't it? --DaveG12345 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete what purpose do the comments listed below serve? this article is just filled with these types of opinionated statements. I hardly see this article as "encyclopedic".
  • his uniform updates are unmatched
  • many accuse and believe Krawhitham and Hory to be the same person. While Krawhitham embraces this accusation, Hory finds it insulting
  • Only the administrators of MVPmods know the truth
  • Since he continued to claim he did not do it (and continues to this day), he was banned permanently. Razum2000 20:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment All of that was removed before your post Krawhitham 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment apparently the changes were made following the entry. And no, not all of it has been removed actually. Razum2000 20:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment the changes to all but one "his uniform updates are unmatched" were made a 19:05 your message was at 20:11 apparently the most of the changes were made before your entry Krawhitham 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I can assure you that those changes had not been made when I read the article and noted those comments. The submission of my entry was done at that time yet they must have been removed prior to it. Razum2000 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That's an argument for cleaning up the article, not deleting the article entirely.Corinh 20:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment numerous entire sections are rife with these types of statements. references are being made to "sigs" without even addressing what this is. this article is really nothing more than a billboard for the web page. Razum2000 20:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Site has over 31,000 registered users, and is widely acknowleged in the sports-gaming community as the #1 site for baseball video gaming. According to Alexa, is the most popular non-commercial baseball video-gaming website. The site seems to exceed the lower standards allowed for modgroup/site entries for 'geekier' games such as HL2 & BF2. But yes, references are needed in the article.Corinh 20:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this is exactly where the problem with this article is. You cannot claim that it is the "#1 web site for baseball gaming" because this type of statement is unverifiable for this particular web page. the site has not won any formal awards, has not been elaborated on in any piece of formal writing, nor has it become well known through any magazine or newspaper. for these reasons, it does not meet the guidelines set by WP:WEB. Razum2000 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not an unverifable claim, it is the #1 site for baseball video gaming, look at the alexa rankings, name a non-commercial baseball video game site that has a higher ranking. It is referred to on nearly every sports-gaming website that has anything to do with baseball, e.g Operation Sports, Simcentral, IGN forums, etc etc.Corinh 20:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment as I understand, those are not legit references. Operation Sports and IGN Forums are simply sites that allow all members to discuss the game. How exactly can you cite this article with internet forum websites? Razum2000 20:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So the Alexa ranking is not a legit reference now?Corinh 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I did notice that a search of "mvpmods" conducted through Google yielded only 710 results. 710?? And most of those were entries made in various internet forums. Razum2000 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment"MVPmods was on page 77 of the June 2005 Computer Games magazine." Does this mean anything to you? wikilagata
  • Comment However a search for "mvp mods" (which the site is also commonly referred to as) reveals 3,610 Ghits Corinh 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment '"mvp mods" baseball' yields about 3,000, though I don't know how many are unique. But as has been said, the article needs to prove that it passes WP:WEB. Citations need to be made regarding its status in the online baseball world, etc. HumbleGod 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 56 are unique. They are a subset of my previous search, after all. I agree with your other points 100%. --DaveG12345 00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep if cleaned up POV writing does not require deletion of an article; it can be cleaned up. The case for deletion in this case then seems to be about notability. Above is correct that you can't say it is the #1 site without citing that claim to an outside source. If it really is that popular, however, its popularity (even if not #1-ness) should be verifiable. That it isn't done so far doesn't mean it can't be done, and if it really is mentioned in published magazines as said above, it could be done. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel I should stress (again) that if the article does not itself prove that it passes WP:WEB, then it fails WP:WEB. There is no "maybe keep and clean-up" provided for by WP:WEB. --DaveG12345 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If its in the magazine like wikilagata says it is then i believe it should be kept. -TheCyrus
  • Weak Delete While MVPMods has relevance in the subgenre of PC sports gaming, but I'd like to see more NPOV, especially after reading this thread. I looked over the article and it seems like a showcase/catalog of what the site features. - CRiyl 03:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:WEB. Wikipedia is not a list of everything ever mentioned in print. -- GWO
  • Keep Although this is an entry of a website and it's mods, there is no way this can be deleted without considering there being near 50 entries of Half-Life mods. --Kccitystar 15:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Should you even be voting given your being a contributor on the site would bring bias? Why bring up the quantity of mods of Half-Life? Not trying to be snobbish, just asking. - CRiyl 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Actually being a contributor to the site does not cloud my judgement, and it was I who first started the article initially, however others had edited after me. The first version of the entry did not contain any form of bias toward MVPMods.com, and it was molded very similar to Maddenmania.--Kccitystar 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To be fair Maddenmania was not marked for deletion until it was mentioned here and JChap response was to add it to the deletion list Krawhitham 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep I think this should be kept and cleaned up especially because of the mention in the video gaming magazine. --Kriegz 12:1, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A suggestion: maybe MVPMods should get a short subsection in either the MVP 2005 or the MVP Baseball article if the 2005 one gets merged. - CRiyl 16:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as article fails to satisfy the inclusin criteria per WP:WEB. The fact it has been reviewed in one magazine does not satisfy The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. I buy Computer Shopper monthly, which reviews hundreds of hardware, software, and websites every month. Because they were reviewed in the March issue, should we have articles on DVDit, Sony Vegas Movie Studio, Linux Standard, Alk, Sketch recognition, or Scratch-Less Disc Industries? No, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and articles must meet the inclusion criteria per WP:VERIFY - e.g. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. - or WP:WEB if about a website. Should we have articles on Windows Messenger, MSN Messenger, Google Talk, ICQ, Skype, GAIM, Crucial, Kingston, Lexar, PNY, Sandisk, Navicore, Tomtom, Mio, and Garmin? Yes, and all these products/companies are included because the content of the articles can be verified by several non-trivial published works or have been published by reputable sources. —TheJC (Talk • Contribs • Count) 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcasterKrawhitham 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment then you need to delete most of the sites in the Computer and video game websites category Krawhitham 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It meets the guidelines more than many of the sites listed in that category. Unlike the First Person shooter fan-sites, due to MLB licencing restrictions 'modding' for this game is not endorsed let alone even acknowleged by the game's manufacturer (The original game itself can no longer be sold by EA Sports). The licencing issue and the legal grey area mods for licenced sports-games occupy contributes to the lack of 'official' (read-corporate owned) references. It should be noted that the one reference in the entry is from the only independently owned videogames magazine in the United States.Corinh 02:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep

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.