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. SoWhy 23:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FPSBanana[edit]

FPSBanana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Seeing this log. The article was deleted three time with A7 tag. After the 3 deletion and yet the article is created without any notability and now iam bring this to afd. It still fails A7. Note: If the majority is delete. I suggest to salt so that article won't be created anymore. If there is any importance the article can be unsalted and created again. SkyWalker (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those three times, the authors used insufficient, unsourced information. There are currently two sources to the information posted in the "History" section. The "power-hungry" (says one of the deleted versions) "super admin" tom (aka Tom Pittlik or clubarfish) along with other moderators keep things "tidied up", so it isn't easily unreliable. On the talk page, IP user 129.97.219.8 (signed AoM) suggested interviews with the original CSC (predecessor to CSB/FPSB) staff; KniteWulf suggested using the Web Archive to view how the website(s) evolved. Thank you. -- Jscorp (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on adding a huge amount of information to this wiki; PCGamer, a prestigious gaming magazine actually put one of the map packs from CSCentral into one of their demo discs. I'm still trying to find the original article, but I do have scanned photos (here's a picture of the menu) of the demo disc. It's really hard to find articles from 2002, and I've been searching avidly for the past few days. I will find it eventually, and when I do, it will be posted up.

I don't consider inclusion on a coverdisk to be an indication of notability. If the magazine has given FPSBanana some significant coverage (more than the blurb shown in the screenshot, per WP:N), then that's a different matter. Marasmusine (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Highly useful resource for modders such as myself, but I can't find anything that attests to real notability. PC Gamer UK has occasionally linked to its files when promoting modding work, but that does not count as significant coverage - its merely using the site as what it is: a file sharing network. Consequently, I must lean towards the delete side of things. -- Sabre (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently believe that this site's limited notable references (and purpose, for that matter) are pretty much the FPS equivalent to that of Machinima.com. I will try to incorporate some more sources into the article and redesign the history section. -- Jscorp (talk) 18:29, 16 November 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.
More