Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeze Tag (Mod)
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Game mod, delete per WP:NOT.--Peta 05:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if expanded for significance by way of reference to other games that it's a mod for, and sourced. If it can't be sourced then delete. MLA 10:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — unless sourced Martinp23 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment under which WP:NOT point does this fall? And being a game mod has nothing to do with anything, there are are loads of articles about mods out there, we should be debating according to WP:RS, WP:CITE etc. ShaunES 23:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator may have been thinking of WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section, which specifically discourages tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides, which this article strongly resembles. wikipediatrix 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please specify where in this article "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides" can be noticed. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator may have been thinking of WP:NOT's "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section, which specifically discourages tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, and video game guides, which this article strongly resembles. wikipediatrix 00:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, unsourced. wikipediatrix 00:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced. Please define: 'non-notable'. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources in this article. There's an external links section which COULD be used as sources, but it currently isn't. And as far as the definition of "non-notable" goes, I'm not going to play the word-parsing game with you. If you feel the subject is indeed notable, go ahead and state why. wikipediatrix 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the lack of argument, there's no reason to get mad. Let's try to post facts rather than judgement and keep a good user relationship. Please get used to the subject in discussion (Quake 3) before stating the value of an article. (i.e. you don't expect a "poet" to evaluate/write about "engineering", right?). Please read: WP:RS . Please note that id Software is the publisher of Quake3. Please note that the Wikipedia's Quake3 main page reffers to Planetquake and Quake3world as sources of daily information about the game. Remember that Wikipedia is all about COLLABORATION. Please try to help find what you call sources instead of judging a subject that you're not familiar with. I'd like to remember that this article is only 2 or 3 days old. To show the value of the article for those who are not familiar with, I've posted links from the most famous sites about games showing the different games in which this mod is present and played. More than that, this article adds more information about this mod on the Quake3 page since almost all mods have their own page and information and open doors for future modifications. Next time just try to define 'non-notable' or try to vote on topics that you are familiar enough to state what is 'notable' or not. Not to be rude, but I was reading your user talk and noticed that this is not the first time you act this way. BUT if you're really willing to delete this topic, I aknowledge your attitude and will be satisfied with that as stated below. Hope you don't take it personal since I'm just tryind to expose my point of view and also I believe that you're mature enough to move ahead with this. PS: I've also sourced and detailed the sources including references. Hope you all like it. Loukinho 09:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If your position is so obviously solid, you should be able to state it concisely without spending so much time talking about me. I'll ignore the rest of your condescending flame-bait. I am not the nominator of the article, so take your attitude to him, not me. And nowhere in your rant did you explain why, if you've just now sourced the article (and I see that you have), why did you insist that it was sourced before, when it wasn't? wikipediatrix 13:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with Wikipediatrix here even though I take a different position on the notability. The onus is on the article and it's editors to show why an article should be included. The false analogy of not expecting a poet to comment on engineering is very unhelpful for the purpose of wikipedia as a closer one would be expecting an encyclopedia contributor to comment on the validity of an encyclopedia article. By all means challenge views but you should do so not by trying to undermine another editor's legitimate perspective through what could easily be construed as personal attacks but to instead show why your own view should be accepted. MLA 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the lack of argument, there's no reason to get mad. Let's try to post facts rather than judgement and keep a good user relationship. Please get used to the subject in discussion (Quake 3) before stating the value of an article. (i.e. you don't expect a "poet" to evaluate/write about "engineering", right?). Please read: WP:RS . Please note that id Software is the publisher of Quake3. Please note that the Wikipedia's Quake3 main page reffers to Planetquake and Quake3world as sources of daily information about the game. Remember that Wikipedia is all about COLLABORATION. Please try to help find what you call sources instead of judging a subject that you're not familiar with. I'd like to remember that this article is only 2 or 3 days old. To show the value of the article for those who are not familiar with, I've posted links from the most famous sites about games showing the different games in which this mod is present and played. More than that, this article adds more information about this mod on the Quake3 page since almost all mods have their own page and information and open doors for future modifications. Next time just try to define 'non-notable' or try to vote on topics that you are familiar enough to state what is 'notable' or not. Not to be rude, but I was reading your user talk and noticed that this is not the first time you act this way. BUT if you're really willing to delete this topic, I aknowledge your attitude and will be satisfied with that as stated below. Hope you don't take it personal since I'm just tryind to expose my point of view and also I believe that you're mature enough to move ahead with this. PS: I've also sourced and detailed the sources including references. Hope you all like it. Loukinho 09:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources in this article. There's an external links section which COULD be used as sources, but it currently isn't. And as far as the definition of "non-notable" goes, I'm not going to play the word-parsing game with you. If you feel the subject is indeed notable, go ahead and state why. wikipediatrix 05:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced. Please define: 'non-notable'. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, perhaps leave the note about it in the Quake 3 article. humblefool® 01:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've added sources on this article and I'm still working to improve it. This article is a STUB. I'll agree if you decide to delete this article even though I will keep on feeling that this article is missing on Quake3>Mods section. But no worries about that. Loukinho 04:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand - the sources you need to save this from deletion aren't just the ones that prove the mod exists (the links to download pages in the current article), but rather you need reliable sources to prove the mod is notable and not just one of countless other mods out there. For instance, a print magazine review or an established highly reputable website. If that kind of coverage doesn't exist, then the mod should stay as an entry in the Q3 article's Mod section (or the mod sections of the other respective games). --SevereTireDamage 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. None of the "sources" meet the standard described in WP:RS, and after looking I can't find any better ones. Also seems pretty non-notable, as are most mods. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:41, 16 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.