- 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Portal Prelude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- Delete non-notable modification for a video game. Sourced only from blogs Mayalld (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What blog?. Does this this and this and this looks blog to you?.--SkyWalker (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, the sources do look blog-ish to me. Mayalld (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yea right. Even blogs are reliable if it by reliable sources --SkyWalker (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see nothing to suggest that the sources shown exercise any degree of editorial selection in respect of the reviews that they publish. As such, they are not reliable. Mayalld (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Planet Half-Life and GameSpy are run by IGN, itself run by News Corporation. IGN and GameSpy both exhibit editorial control, and Planet Half-Life does to an extent as well, although its more of a fan site run by IGN staff. Whether they seem bloggish to you or not, GameSpy and IGN sources are accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia as evidenced by their near omnipresence across Wikipedia alongside GameSpot, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. -- Sabre (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with redirect to Portal (video game). Yes, sources are reliable, however, unofficial user modes are rarely given their own articles unless they get considerable wider coverage (otherwise, I can tell you we'd have a lot more user mods out there). The pack has been added to the Portal page already, and needs no more coverage at the present time from what the above sources give currently. --MASEM 13:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Masem, I don't know what more else is needed. If they are reliable sources the article has right to be here. Their website says that Valve has contacted them.They even said that some newspaper and Channel 4 were talking about this mod. Modders deserve attention. They are doing a lot of hard work and their deserves more encouragement. Look at Valve for example they even started bringing out mods on to their distribution system. It says a lot. Seriously what is wrong is adding mod in Wikipedia?.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The typical video game article will have the following four sections: plot, gameplay, development, and reception. I have not played Prelude, but from what I've read and seen, there's no change in the Portal mechanics, so there is essentially nothing there. I'm not sure how much plot can be gotten into; given that it is unofficial, one has to be careful to presume that it is prelude to Portal, so there can't really be much there. Development as best I can tell can only be sourced to the developers themselves and thus this will not be a significant section. And from the reception standpoint, we're not going to have anything like sales (# of downloads maybe), but the reception itself as best I can tell is simply the levels are harder than Portal. There are notable sources for an article, yes, but I think the overall quality of such an article, pending new sources that may arise, is not good enough to have as its own article; two sentences can cover everything this article states presently in the main Portal video game article. This is the typical case with any user-generation modification of any game in terms of WP - its release may gain a brief bit of notability, but lasting notability is not guarantied (see WP:NTEMP). Not that there isn't potential for this to be more significant in the future, but given the typical pattern of user-mods, it likely won't; if it does, great, we can expand it. --MASEM 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, WP:NTEMP contradicts what you say: "If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence". According to that, there's no such thing as temporary notability or unguaranteed lasting notability. -- Sabre (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right - I meant WP:NOT#NEWS. --MASEM 12:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability asks for siginficant coverage in multiple reliable sources, the Gamespy and Planet Halflife sources provide it. Additional interest displayed by the Kotaku piece, Softpedia, Rock Paper Shotgun and Wired demonstrate that interest is being shown and further sources are likely. The developer has been interviewed twice at least, which allows for some development info. The only thing which magazines have consistently covered which isn't off-the-shelf is mods, mainly for FPS games, and they've done so for years. The gaming world has gone bananas for Portal and here's a mod which takes as long to complete, has 400 lines of dialogue and may involve cake. Chances of it not getting covered in mags? Realistically, nil. IMO the sources present are enough anyway, but when there's that much potential for more deletion seems like throwing the baby out with the other baby. Someoneanother 12:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there is interest, but given how fast the gaming community moves and that the game has been out for a week and the coverage seems to have died down already, what is out there in coverage is most likely the bulk of what we will see. This doesn't prevent us from talking about it on the Portal page - there's no significant size issues there yet, and there's no reason that we can't make a new section about it, but as a standalone article, it is likely going to be very stubby. It's not an issue of notability, simply article quality. --MASEM 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What an excuse. So if it dies down. It should not be there?. What sort of excuse is that?. If that is the case half of the article in wikipedia has died down and must be deleted and/or should be merged?. Masem you are one who deleted Portal Prelude references in Portal article saying it was not relevant and now you want this article to be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before the map pack was released, someone added a very long (relative to the rest of the article) section on PP, which basically sourced the mod's website. I think at that time there was a Kotaku article mentioning this, I can't remember - but as a unreleased mod it no way needed about the 6-8 sentences it was getting. Now, the mod did get released, and more reliable sources (wired, RPS, at the very least, and the gamespy review) expressed the interest to make it completely reasonable to add the mod to the page - in one or two sentence - it is completely worthwhile to talk about because it's not just a random Joe User map pack. Again, my argument is not because there isn't notability for this, but that you are going to have a difficult time making this article any better from the lack of any other reliable sources that I have seen, at the same time having coverage in the main Portal article will make both topics better. --MASEM 12:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What an excuse. So if it dies down. It should not be there?. What sort of excuse is that?. If that is the case half of the article in wikipedia has died down and must be deleted and/or should be merged?. Masem you are one who deleted Portal Prelude references in Portal article saying it was not relevant and now you want this article to be deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there is interest, but given how fast the gaming community moves and that the game has been out for a week and the coverage seems to have died down already, what is out there in coverage is most likely the bulk of what we will see. This doesn't prevent us from talking about it on the Portal page - there's no significant size issues there yet, and there's no reason that we can't make a new section about it, but as a standalone article, it is likely going to be very stubby. It's not an issue of notability, simply article quality. --MASEM 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge. Notability is not really an issue here, Skywalker and Someone another have both provided sources displaying notability. The problem is more what really can be said about the subject manner, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be that much as this is at the end of the day a glorified map pack. Rather than deletion, a redirect to Portal (video game)#Critical reception seems to me to be the most reasonable course of action, along with the addition to that article of the sources produced here to produce a quick and concise summary of the subject. -- Sabre (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the point of redirect?. It was added on Wikipedia when Masem removed it. Here is an excerpt
So, Ok... we actually got into the Wikipedia, at least until someone named Masem decided that it was not relevant to the article. After time goes by the traces would disappear. I have seen this happening in lot of Wikipedia articles. Let it be separate. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If the sources are reliable, then the article remains. Simply like that.MRFraga (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2008 (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.