Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freelancer: Combat Evolved

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 due to unanimous (-1) consensus of all actual Wikipedians. — Philwelch t 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freelancer: Combat Evolved

edit
Also, the history and background is excessive. It is also done on original research, I believe. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 02:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I have offended anyone by placing the "possible single use account" tag after their posts. I did not know that it would cause so much consternation. Please take my apologies in this matter. And, even though I mention that I am in 7th grade, it is completely irrelevant to this AfD discussion. If needed to come up with an appropriate retort, I may say that I am already attending college as a biology major, so I would think that if the comment that one is in 7th grade enters this conversation, it really simply supports me. Enough with that. I hope no one took offense at what I just put down.
Cheers,
RelentlessRouge 19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will be on vacation, so I may not be actively participating in this AfD discussion before it is closed. Thank you for your time and effort in contributing to this discussion.
Cheers,
RelentlessRouge 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jarlaxle, this is a mod that is non-notable. It is as if I wrote about my own Xbox Live clan about Wikipedia. Who cares about my clan? (except for myself and my 7 other members, lol) It's not notable. Let's discuss this! Cheers, RelentlessRouge 01:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am a member of the FLCE development team, and I would just like to clear up a few misconceptions. Firstly, this page was not created or maintained by us. It was made by a particularly devoted fan, hence the lack of a lot of formal information. We are currently giving it a major overhaul to bring it up to the wikipedia quality control standards. Second, this is a mod for Microsoft Freelancer, not halo. And despite the fact that we are still in alpha stage, and have yet to make a public release, we currently have over 850 members, which makes us one of the largest freelancer mods in existence, and defianately not non-notable within that community. Our mod has also been featured in an article on www.4players.de, which according to this classifies it as notable. The relevant article can be found here --Nightrogue 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has any recommendations on how to improve the quality of the wikipedia article in order to meet the required standards, I am all ears. I must confess my experience with wikis is limited.--Nightrogue 07:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nightrogue. I believe that the issue here is not quality control. The issue in question here is that it is an advertisement. Although the Wikipedia community appreciates the time that one of your fans took to place this online, there are certain guidelines on Wikipedia that regard what articles are acceptable - What Wikipedia is Not. In this case, the subdivision Wikipedia: Notability (companies + corporations) is also applicable. The followed is directly from Wikipedia:Notability - "Criteria for products and services
A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.
This criterion excludes:
Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about its products or services, and advertising for the product or service. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary. 1
Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. 7
The product or service is so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization."
Cheers, RelentlessRouge 12:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article, and tell me if you can find anything "wrong" in the FLCE article that isnt mirrored in that one. --Nightrogue 17:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nightrogue! Cheers! In answer to the aforementioned article, I currently find little at fault. It does not say anything about how to play the game. Halo is a well-established product on Bungie Studios, and millions play it. No offense is intended, but I believe that FL:CE will never reach that popularity. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article, and tell me if you can find anything "wrong" in the FLCE article that isnt mirrored in that one. And as for the article saying who controls what faction, no it doesnt. The closest it comes to that is saying that they are player controlled, and giving some basic information about them. And saying it is like a game guide is even worse. Are there any ingame statistics? Any trade routes, combat guides, ship prices? There isnt any useful information whatsoever about how to play the game, apart from incredibly general statements that could apply to most any multiplayer game with a team component, and the basic rules of the game. Look up the article on Chess. Wow, thats a lot of information on rules, tactics and techniques. I dont see anybody objecting. Ah, but chess is an ancient and respected game, and FLCE is not. Ok then, look at this. You can see some striking parallels between this article and the FLCE one, albeit that the FLCE one contains LESS gameplay information. This article is guilty of nothing that isnt mirrored by hundreds of other legitimate articles on Wikipedia. That said, I recognize that there are still some improvements required to bring it up to scratch, and they will be made, as soon as it's safety is assured.--Nightrogue 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about mods are an accepted part of Wikipedia just look in the category Computer game mods. This article does require significant cleanup and work but this poject is noteworthy and merits inclusion here.

Wikipedia standards are meant to be applied universally and follow established and accepted policy precedent. As such I once again refer to category Computer game mods in defense of not deleting this article. If you are to have credibility in your arguement you would have to go and slap a deletion nomination on most of the articles in that category. The fact that has not happened (either by you or another) is further proof that your claims of the standard you wish to apply here to this article are not in fact applicable in that manner.

Given that this project has been featured by international press in a manner which no other Freelancer Modification has (as mentioned by Nightrouge) and which few mods of any game ever are. This is further evidence that not only does this article merit existence by virtue of accepted standards of articles of this subject manner with regards to being noteworthy, but that it exceeds them.

I do agree that this article should be deleted if it is not brought up to the standards all Wikipedia articles must meet (and the most recent edit by Nightrouge does not in my view accomplish that) specifically with regards to WP:OR. If that does not occur then it should be removed, as the only reason that has been outlined here in favor of deletion that actually is in line with Wikipedia policy is the arguement which can be made that this article serves more as an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. That arguement specifically pertains to WP:OR. If this is rectified I really see no policy reason why this article should be removed.

Even if operating under the assumption that other policy standards apply with regards to the eveluation of the noteworhty level of this article, I would refer to when the discussion about the propossed deletion of Eon8 was going on. Due consideration was at least given in that the timer had not yet counted down. As such, judgement on whether that article was indeed noteworthy or not was reserved until the project timer concluded. This allowed for a more considered opinion to be formed as to how noteworthy it was. Since this is a project that is also still in development, I would think that the same logic and courtesy would be sensibly applied here. --Sully 19:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WP:CORP fully applies, because Freelancer: Combat Evolved is a product. Cheers, RelentlessRouge 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to sound like a broken record so I will simply refer you to actually read Wikipedia: Notability (companies + corporations). You will see that is very clearly targeted and explained. FL:CE is not a comercial product nor is it a company nor is it a corporation. It really is as simple as that in that it does not apply. If you take the time to read the policy carefully and examine how it has been applied in the past here on Wikipedia you will see what I am talking about. --Sully 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs) [reply]
Hello, Sully! Ok - FL:CE is a product. I will reread WP:CORP soon to see if commercial matters or not. Anyway, parts of this article are like a game guide, telling what players must do or anything. It's also a vanity page, telling who controls what faction or everything. I sympathize with you, in that I've created or heavily contributed to articles, just do have an admin delete them. However, there are guidelines that must be respected.
Cheers,
RelentlessRouge 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article, and tell me if you can find anything "wrong" in the FLCE article that isnt mirrored in that one. And as for the article saying who controls what faction, no it doesnt. The closest it comes to that is saying that they are player controlled, and giving some basic information about them. And saying it is like a game guide is even worse. Are there any ingame statistics? Any trade routes, combat guides, ship prices? There isnt any useful information whatsoever about how to play the game, apart from incredibly general statements that could apply to most any multiplayer game with a team component, and the basic rules of the game. Look up the article on Chess. Wow, thats a lot of information on rules, tactics and techniques. I dont see anybody objecting. Ah, but chess is an ancient and respected game, and FLCE is not. Ok then, look at this. You can see some striking parallels between this article and the FLCE one, albeit that the FLCE one contains LESS gameplay information. This article is guilty of nothing that isnt mirrored by hundreds of other legitimate articles on Wikipedia. That said, I recognize that there are still some improvements required to bring it up to scratch, and they will be made, as soon as it's safety is assured.--Nightrogue 17:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Relentless. You certainly are living up to your name. Look i can appreciate your enthusiasm here but admins have seen FL:CE's page before (because we had a problem with vandalism) and have never flagged this. I happen to be the leader of the FL:CE Development team and can tell you it is not a product, it is a project. There is a big difference in that terminology. Beside that difference in semantics the simple, VERY simple fact is it applies and I quote "This page gives some rough guidelines which Wikipedia editors use to decide if a company, corporation or other economic entity should have an article on Wikipedia." The details on criteria for products and services WITH REGARDS TO A "company, corporation or other economic entity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs)
Look I understand and appreciate your intrest in working on wikipedia. But right now and especially with this rather insulting edit potting possible single purpose account in front of the sigs of this articles supporters and the fact that you created this whole discussion without even once posting on Freelancer: Combat Evolved discussion page really seems to me that you are the one with a single purpose here. I know you have attempted to become an admin here before and have overwhelmingly been voted down. This doesn't say anything about your character or if you are a good person as i am sure that you are. However, you really need to stop acting as if you are an admin and putting those "Possible single purpose account" tags in front of our names is really insulting and infuriating and I have now removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs)
Please don't take this as a flame or anything like that but I also understand from looking at your user page that you are in the seventh grade and so that is why I have repeated myself on the issue of Wikipedia: Notability (companies + corporations) since the specific concept of particular policy may not be easy for you to grasp. Thus I will again implore you to please reread that policy as it is very clearly written. I will not however repeat myself on this point again. You really need to learn that in a debate you are suppossed to come up with points and counterpoints, not simply keep insisting the same arguement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl0ad (talk • contribs)
Frankly I think you have made your views on this article very clear as have I. I know I will not be posting anything else here in this discussion until after the article in question has been cleaned up which I hope to contibute in doing so later. I honestly have better things to do with my time than to sit here and be insulted by a frustrated seventh grader. Again, I am sure in your heart your intentions ar honorable, and it is understandable that you may not have yet developed certain social graces, but that is no excuse for this kind of behaviour towards other people. Respect, it goes a long way when having a discussion. --Sully 18:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not supposed to remove the single purpose account tags yourself - it's considered vandalism. If you're not a single purpose account, bring it up with an admin. As for the game, it is not notable. It has not been the subject of non-trivial third-party coverage (HBO doesn't count), it is not well-known, and it is not widely played. Comparing the game to Halo itself or to other games does not work because this is a mod and not a stand-alone game. Only the most noteworthy mods are in the Computer game mods category. The ones that aren't probably shouldn't be there, but that's not a discussion for this AfD - the existence of one article is not a reason to keep another. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dload, Sully, however you would like to be called. I "honestly" have far better things to do than to be a "frustrated seventh grader", like doing organic chemistry. It is possible I "have [not] yet developed certain social graces". My rather failed RfA when I had been editing Wikipedia for 2 months, and I admit I should not have started it. If you intention was to infuriate me, derogatively offend me, or another purpose which I can not fathom, it did not work. Anyway, I fail to see how it effects this argument. Anyone can add the "single-purpose user" tag. If you feel offended, then fine. My intention was to alert other contributors to this discussion about what I believe are your and Nightrogue's discussions. And, thanks for informing me that I'm living up to my username. I'm proud I chose it when I created an account.

If you have another other comments to speak to me personally about, you can simply write them on User talk: RelentlessRouge.

Cheers,

RelentlessRouge 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reason why you deleted my post? This is supposed to be a reasonable discussion, which CANNOT BE HAD if you pick and choose which side of the discussion gets to speak. The post I made had no obscenities, or insults. How do you justify deleting it? As for sockpuppet votes, I myself have only used the one account this whole time. --Nightrogue 18:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, all these one-purpose accounts mysteriously popping up actually reduces the stength of the keep discussion, since it shows that the only people defending this article are its editors, wheras the people seeking deletion are the general, diversified contributors. — Deckiller 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but we are working by wikipedia's own rules. We have not misconducted ourselves in any manner that I am aware of. In a truly intellectual discussion, such as the one we are supposed to be having, what people say is more important than who says it. --Nightrogue 18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note, the person this user is refering to is not me — I did not delete a post) — Deckiller 20:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Note, the person this user is refering to is not me — I did not delete a post either) RelentlessRouge 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history, there were some arguments moved around for the sake of organization, but nothing appears to have been deleted. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 21:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked for my post and couldnt see it, so I thought it had been deleted. Sorry about that.--Nightrogue 06:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Freelancer:_Combat_Evolved&oldid=1136111967"