Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Reality (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. As always, if anyone wants to transwiki to somewhere that wants this and has compatable liscensing, let me know. W.marsh 20:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Reality (Mod)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article gives no indication of satisfying WP:SOFTWARE Whispering^(talk/c) 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to battlewiki.com if they want it, else delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 12:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mods are rarely notable enough for articles. Recury 14:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the mod does satisfy WP:SOFTWARE. It was featured in "Computer Games" magazine, as shown: [1]. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.229.17 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Please read WP:SOFTWARE again, especially the part about "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". One ≠ multiple. Fan-1967 21:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The mod was also published in the March issue of Gamestar as well as being distributed on CD with the magazine. There are several other publications in the works. This clearly meets the requirements for notable software.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.229.17 (talk • contribs)
Keep, "Publishing is the activity of putting information into the public arena". This is a quote from the wiki site. At no point in your reasons for deletion are websites excluded as published medias. Please remove the motion for deletion and return the article to its previous stature. Furthermore WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy and the mod is not commerical software. Hence, due to the numerous website references to Project Reality, and the unreasonable criterion you placed on the article your motion for deletion is false and unjust.86.137.79.79 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFTWARE covers all software, commercial or otherwise, and embodies our Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy that Wikipedia is not a grab-bag of articles on every single piece of software ever written, but is, rather, an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 00:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, in that case then you should delete the following articles, to be fair, you can't just delete one mod article and leave the rest. Deleting all of the mods from Wikipedia goes against the whole feel that has made Wikipedia so popular amongst internet communities, and is really a step in the wrong direction, IMHO, for the site. No one had a problem with mods being on Wikipedia until Whispering here went deletion happy.
  - "If article X then article Y." is a flawed argument, for obvious reasons. If you want to make an argument that actually holds water, address this article and demonstrate by citing sources that the WP:SOFTWARE criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 09:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I repeat to Uncle G. Keep, "Publishing is the activity of putting information into the public arena". This is a quote from the wiki site. At no point in your reasons for deletion are websites excluded as published medias. Please remove the motion for deletion and return the article to its previous stature. Furthermore WP:SOFTWARE is not official policy. Hence, due to the numerous website references to Project Reality, and the unreasonable criterion you placed on the article your motion for deletion is false and unjust16:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:RS, WP:V. No multiple reliable sources = no article. Fyi, many mods have been deleted in the past. Wickethewok 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ExplainWhat are WP:RS, WP:V, please reference these conditions. Also can you note that this mod has featured in over 3 print publications and many more publications online. 18:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I wikilinked them above. You can just click on them now. WP:V <-- Wikipedia's verifiability policy; WP:RS <-- explanations regarding sources. Wickethewok 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's just nothing to say other than direct observation, and we're not here to publish first-hand observations. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ok, has anyone really played this mod? If not, you have no grounds to talk about the verifiability of this mod, or its validity as an article. This is the most popular mod for Battlefield 2. It has 6000-some forum members and god knows how many dedicated players. I think this is big enough to become an article to become remembered. Also, those of you who have never made a mod for Battlefield 2 also have no grounds to decapitated this mod's image, as you do not know how many solid months it takes to take a mod to this level of success. So those of you who know nothing about this mod, or mods in general, please refrain from casting your opinion.65.49.206.5 00:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Griffon2-6[reply]
- Comment Please assume good faith. Whispering^(talk/c) 05:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is notable, has appeared in publications, is the most popular modification of the 3rd most popular online game, etc. Why delete? GeZe 05:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no case for deletion here: WP:SOFTWARE is merely a proposed guideline and the article is sourced (although it could use some sourcing to other sites than the official homepage). Please stick to Wikipedia:deletion policy for reasons that are ground for deletion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-rhetorical question - Why do we have so many keep votes despite a lack of multiple reliable sources? So far, all we have is 10 sentences in a single magazine. Wickethewok 16:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR, V, NOTE etc. Daniel .Bryant 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:SOFTWARE. --Draicone ^(talk) 03:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to delete. "Project Reality" gets 390k ghits, compared to 277k for ["Project Reality" battlefield "Project Reality" battlefield] (attempt to discern noise-vs-signal in search). Google news gets 5 hits for "Project Reality", but none of them appear to be related. At this time, I'm unable to confirm notability one way or the other, and in particular seems iffy on WP:SOFTWARE grounds. If it is notable, I'd like to keep it, but I'll need to be convinced that it is -- mentions by news sources, prominent in the field, or other websites, be they mass media outlets or major mod centers, I'd like some confirmation that a lot of people have taken notice of this. If somebody finds notability support, let us know pronto. Luna Santin 03:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has already been editied to mention two magazines that the mod has been in. It will be included in a third magazine in the very near future. There are probably other small stints in magazines that we don't know about. With the Gamestar magazine it was distributed on their CD, meaning that the release was sent to 300,000 people. Here is a review of the mod on TotalBF2, easily the largest BF2 news and fan site around. The mod has recieved 36k downloads on FilePlanet alone. Between the TotalBF2 downloads, torrent downloads, and other mod site downloads, the mod has easily grossed 100k downloads over its 4 major releases. The mod was also approached about doing a stint in "Soldier Magazine", the British Army's magazine. Surely this adds up to notability? This is not a small mod that no one has ever heard of and that never released anything, quite the opposite.--207.177.229.17 05:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I swear to god all game map and game mod articles most go. Not all Mods can have their own articles.--M8v2 23:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But this modification has been feautred in multiple print sources... and was listed by Dslyecxi as one of the best mods in realating to realism (http://dslyecxi.com/tactical_index.html) Dslyecxi articles have all been on the front page of Digg (eg: http://digg.com/gaming_news/Battlefield_2_mod_FINALLY_reproduces_supersonic_bullet_cracks 924-diggs) That articles also specificly mentions PR and has a video of it. Along with Digg, his articles about realistic gaming have been mentioned in PC Gamer UK GeZe 02:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another in the seemingly endless chain of game-mod articles lately. At least this one has references of sorts, but the references are the official website and a forum. Counter-Strike is encyclopedic, this isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 7 October 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.