Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modular Combat (video 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 was delete. On balance, consensus is that the sourcing isn't quite strong enough. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 09:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Modular Combat (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, poorly-referenced, full of WP:PUFFERY - a non-notable spawn from Half-Life that has zero requirements for an article of its own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 13:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 13:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Found plenty of RSes on first Google page. Refs simply need to be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it currently stands - reads like an advertisement and has no sources; fails WP:NOTABILITY. APerson241 (talk!) 19:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve - meets WP:NVG (as Walter said, plenty of independent secondary sources showing sigcov). Article as it stands isn't too good, but can be improved. Maybe WP:TNT if nobody is willing to work on it, but I think keep is better on this one - the tags were added this month. Ansh666 02:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, per below, Weak keep - one reasonably good source. Ansh666 19:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable - no multiple* in-depth, independent, reliable WP:GNG sources. I searched for such (like WP:VG/RS), but I cannot produce such sources as Walter Görlitz and Ansh666 claim. I see a bunch of passing mentions, but nothing in-depth where the game/mod is the subject of the article. All others are directory listings, or primary sources. [1] lists a bunch of features, but they appear to all be within ModDB itself, so not independent.
I definitely don't see any reviews.* Willing to adjust my conclusion, should above editors link the sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC) *revised[reply]- How about my very first google search result for "modular combat video game"? Here you go. There should be more, but they seem to have disappeared since I searched - searching for mods is harder than individual games. Ansh666 18:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's follow that up with some Russian sources: [2] and [3]. First 5 pages of Google gives this much. Ansh666 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, [4] looks good, albeit short and not a proper review (all my links to GameFront were downloads and such for some reason). [5] looks good at first glance, but author has no credentials and per [6] it's completely user-generated and I don't see editorial oversight except other users "voting" on posts, the post is however "endorsed by editorial team" whatever that means. [7] doesn't look reliable, author has no credentials and I see no editor oversight mentions, plus [8] has the same content. Don't know who is copying who, but it sounds like a press release/promo feature. So that's 1 okay and 1 situational source. I searched for more Russian sources, but came up empty. This doesn't change my !vote yet, but I'm hoping you can find at least another in-depth reliable source. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aargh! That's all I could find this time - I swear there were more when I checked earlier. Anyone else? Ansh666 19:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, [4] looks good, albeit short and not a proper review (all my links to GameFront were downloads and such for some reason). [5] looks good at first glance, but author has no credentials and per [6] it's completely user-generated and I don't see editorial oversight except other users "voting" on posts, the post is however "endorsed by editorial team" whatever that means. [7] doesn't look reliable, author has no credentials and I see no editor oversight mentions, plus [8] has the same content. Don't know who is copying who, but it sounds like a press release/promo feature. So that's 1 okay and 1 situational source. I searched for more Russian sources, but came up empty. This doesn't change my !vote yet, but I'm hoping you can find at least another in-depth reliable source. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Non-notable; only sources are self-published. Miniapolis 22:55, 11 July 2013 (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.