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. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlefield 1942 mods (3rd nomination)[edit]

List of Battlefield 1942 mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indiscriminate information (WP:NOT), Most of these mods are no longer in existence, some are non-notable and the 5-6 that ARE notable already have their own article (indeed, I'm sure one mod is listed in 3 places on the list!) WP:NOT an online directory or repository of links. If a mod isn't notable enough to have it's own article on Wikipedia, then why is it notable enough to be included on a list in Wikipedia? It should also be deleted on the precedent of List of Half-Life mods and List of Half-Life 2 mods which have been deleted recently also.The Kinslayer 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous nominations: 1st 2nd
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 15:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the arguments for previous nominations were largely refuted. Millions of people have played these mods, BF1942 has had millions of players, and has one of largest most notable modding communities in the history of gaming. Its like deleting an entire cultural movement. Bfelite 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Most of the keep comments in the previous AfDs seemed to be WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IKNOWIT, or WP:INCLUSIONCRITERIADONTAPPLY. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gamecruft, and a how-to guide (no, not a strategy guide per se, but if you want to mod CPTGbr 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)the game itself this article is intended to tell you "how to" do that). Kafziel ^Talk 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I completely disagree that this is a how-to guide. Where do you see that? The scare quotes make it seem like you don't even believe what you're saying. — brighterorange (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a notable topic for a notable game. By the way, "Gamecruft" is not a deletion criteria, and if this article is a how-to guide then so is List of Linux distributions. TomTheHand 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retort - Your right, but WP:NOT and WP:N ARE, and this article fails them. Battlefield is notable and it has an article. 98% of this list is NOT notable, and seeing as how nearly all of them are dead, they are unlikely to get notable either. 4 of the notable ones are different versions of the same mod, all done by the same company. I would love to hear why you think each and every game should be on this list, or why the list itself is notable enough for inclusion. Or were you not thinking in that much detail when you say it's a notable subject? The Kinslayer 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - List of Linux distributions doesn't go into nearly as much detail as this article does. No big chart describing every function of every distribution. But that's basically just a pokemon argument anyway; just because the Linux page hasn't been deleted (though it is marked as needing cleanup and reading like an advertisement) doesn't mean this one can't be. Kafziel ^Talk 16:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment This list is also important in the historical sense, for some years now. Just like many 1980s era games are rarely played, but important part of computer history. Bfelite 20:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Prove it. The Kinslayer 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per previous failed nominations. "listcruft" is just as invalid a deletion criterion as WP:ILIKEIT is for a keeping. Not indiscriminate information. List could be culled to remove non-notable entries (like probably the whole section on unreleased mods), but BF1942 is a huge game and that makes its modding scene important enough to me. Should be sourceable from primary sources (the mods themselves) and gaming literature. — brighterorange (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your right. It should be sourcable, but guess what, after TWO AfDs, there are still no sources to establish to notability of these mods. You'd have thought after two AfDs they might have considered it an important issue. What makes you think that this article being kept after a third AfD will make those sources appear? The Kinslayer 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is going to end up like the GNAA deletion. "It should be kept, because THIS AfD is going to produce sources, if you only let it be kept!" -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Sources should be added, but AFD is not the proper venue for that. Not currently having sources (as opposed to being unverifiable) is not a deletion criterion. — brighterorange (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If sources exist, then why have they not been added after two AfDs? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because, like with any article, finding sources is a tedious process and there is a shortage of editors who go through Wikipedia and perform tedious tasks. Just see Category:Wikipedia backlog! (Most Wikipedia articles are not currently sourced!) It is important that we find sources, but AFD is not cleanup, and the purpose of AFD is not "find sources now or delete." — brighterorange (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • But people MUST have complained about lack of sources. It would be in the keep !voters' best interests to provide sources. Thus, I don't think there ARE any. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • - I'll repost this from further down the discussion because it's relevant here too: "And yet, it's been kept twice and completely failed to be cleaned up. Unless your goingh to do it yourself, it's not going to happen. You all say 'Keep and clean up' yet none of you ever have any intention of actually being one of the people to clean up the article. It hasn't been cleaned up after TWO AfDs. It had it's chance, now it should be got rid of." The Kinslayer 16:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I appreciate your position, but disagree with it. There is simply a shortage of people willing to do tedious cleanup work; just because something is not done now does not mean it will not or can not be done later. — brighterorange (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Reference - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Half-Life mods The Kinslayer 16:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The notable mods already have their own articles, and as it is currently, the article contains way too much speculation about "unreleased" mods. This might be appropriate for a gaming wiki or a BF1942 site, but I'm not convinced it warrants its own article. --Alan Au 17:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While every battle in say, world war 2 is not notable for a 'pedia' that limits its scope like wikipedia, a listing of all the battle could easily be. This allows the few battles which had articles to be put in perspective in the pedia. In the same way, while most of these mods may not have articles, they provide the encylopedic context for the ones that do. Bfelite 22:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, there isn't a list of battle avoided in WW2, nor is there a list of ww2 battles there are nearly done. Nor is there a list of ww2 battles that have been cancelled or could have happened if something had changed. Yet this list contains games that can be clumsely put into those groups (I say clumsily due to the poor comparison of WW2 and computer game mods). And before some smart-ass say 'well clean up all the dead/cnacelled etc mods' I'm going to say 'I'm not doing it' Polcies compel people wishing to see an article kept to clean it up. After 2 AfDs it wasn't cleaned up. We are what, 5-6 days, into this AfD and no-one has touched it. You (as in the people saying keep) aren't planning to do the work, so what the hell make you think anyone else will? The Kinslayer 09:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Alan Au. —Wrathchild

^(talk) 18:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment comment at Alan Au. Bfelite 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment comment at Bfelite. The Kinslayer 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks like a useful resource but seriously needs cleanup, not deletion. Notability of games should extend to their mods. --MegaBurn 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Wikipedia is not a game manual ! Tulkolahten 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Umm... what in this article reads like a manual? I would love for you to tell us and not only state "Wikipedia is not a game manual !" Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree with Havok here, what has an instruction manual got to do with a list of mods? At least take the time to look at the damn article before making comments that are just gonna hurt the delete side the debate. The Kinslayer 09:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment it sounds like it - like a game manual, list of modes fails WP:NOTE I think. So I still insist on my previous vote. Tulkolahten 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Exactly what sounds like a game manual? Do you even understand what a game manual is? Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment calm down Havok, immediately. I do not care if you like this game or not. You read my opinion that it sounds like a game manual. Do you even understand what an opinion is ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Yes, I know what an opinion is. And my opinion is that your reason for voting delete is extremely flawed. And when was I not calm? Havok (T/C/e/c) 06:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alan Au. TJ Spyke 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I purged the external links from the article some time ago. I don't have an opinion in this article, but as it is now, it is a serious magnet for spam. Many of the projects are just starting or already abandoned. Unless there is a kind of "rule" to separate those mods that are allowed in the list from those that are not, the list will only become worse. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my comment at Alan Au. Bfelite 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment comment at Bfelite. The Kinslayer 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sharkface217 05:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my comment at nom. Bfelite 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • • • Comment comment at Bfelite. The Kinslayer 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs heavy cleanup, as well as references. Other then that, a useful list as stated above. Dead and "coming soon" mods that are non-notable could also be removed, but the list of mods that are in circulation should be kept. Havok (T/C/e/c) 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup - per Havok above, and per previous nominations.  The Transhumanist   09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, it's been kept twice and completely failed to be cleaned up. Unless your goingh to do it yourself, it's not going to happen. You all say 'Keep and clean up' yet none of you ever have any intention of actually being one of the people to clean up the article. It hasn't been cleaned up after TWO AfDs. It had it's chance, now it should be got rid of. The Kinslayer 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why not help clean it up then? I could help clean it up, but seeing as I have no knowledge of Battlefield 1942, my cleanup would have to be the look of the article, not content. Havok (T/C/e/c) 12:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Simple, I don't think the article should be kept. I'm not helping clean up an article I think should be deleted, and the policies compel people wishing to keep it to do so, not people who think it should be deleted. I stand by my statement that in six months time, this article wont have changed, save maybe more mods dying. It certainly hasn't changed significantly enough in the last six months since the previous AfD. The Kinslayer 12:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Understandable. I'll try and clean it up when I have time to. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has undergone some cleanup since those AFD. Not being cleaned up fast enough is not listed under the reasons for deletion either. Bfelite 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Pointless page that hardly seems encyclopedic. Debaser23 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the largest number of total conversions for any game is not only highly notable, but important to both video games, the modding community, and culture in general. Bfelite 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Find me news article to back that up and then we'll talk. The Kinslayer 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Numerous mods have been featured in industry magazines, and recieved awards. Unfortunely ref/sources to "real" articles for many of these mods were deleted when the individual articles were deleted of the wiki. If your familiar with gaming magazines you can find articles at the library, but they are not usually available to link to. Looking around I found this ([1]) a PC Gamer magazine October 2005 review of a smaller 1942 mods. More popular ones like Eve of Destruction won PC Gamer best mod of the year. Forgotten Hope was reviewed on Tech TV as another example. Bfelite 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Contains dozens of highly notable games featured magazines, game sites, and thousands of google hits. It has immense encyclopedic value as a record of of dozens of notable 1942 modes, and as a wider historical value of the rise of mods as historical, cultural, and social event. Bfelite 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge only the most notable information with Battlefield 1942. Noclip 21:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Andre (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The impact of the largest modding community of its time with mods played by millions is notable, and specific. Bfelite 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but needs cleanup. The argument that "If a mod isn't notable enough to have it's own article on Wikipedia, then why is it notable enough to be included on a list in Wikipedia?" is flawed. There is nothing wrong with lists including things that aren't notable enough for its own article. VegaDark 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but clean up. I still feel that mod lists aren't directories, and usually are important to show impact or popularity of a game. As well, they are also useful. Re edit so only the most notable mods are talked about. CPTGbr 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wish people wouldn't keep renominating articles that have only had a thorough AfD a few months ago. An item does not need the same degree of notability to be included in a list as it does to merit its own article. It is the topic of the list that needs the notability, not all of the individual constituents. The individual items are not indiscriminate if it is decided that the subject is of worth. Tyrenius 01:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. God, again? //Halibutt 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom. If one list is not good enought to be here and gets deleted not because of being Half-Life but for being a list then following the same logic all similar lists should be also deleted. Snewerl 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since the article has been sent to AFD two days ago, there have been no attempts at making it encyclopedic. "Keep and clean up" is nice, but unless you do it yourself, it is not done by others. -- ReyBrujo 17:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CPTGbr and others. --- RockMFR 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Here is anarticle with a good example of how mods should be listed: Command & Conquer: Generals (and even in this case I think most of the mods need to be ditched.) The Kinslayer 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although I cannot back it up with evidence, the mods as a whole have probably affected the real-world to a degree. Things like PC gaming magazines are the places to look for reliable references. If this was about a singular mod, it would be a strong delete. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up the article, I see no valid rationale for deletion presented other than "i dont like it so it should go" which we all know doesnt pass muster.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete add the notable ones to Battlefield 1942 mods. Koweja 22:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was going to go ahead and add them to the category, but it turns out only two articles qualified. The rest of the links either redirected to another mod, were for completely different games, and in one case not related to gaming at all. Just delete. Koweja 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Would someone like to explain why this article, which supposedly can just be cleaned up, has not been cleaned up in the six months since the first AfD? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because people who have absolutely no intention of doing the work themselves say 'keep and clean-up' and disappear, leaving us with this mess of an article yet again. The Kinslayer 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because it may need cleaning up and has not been is not a reason for deletion of the entire topic. Tyrenius 23:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's an idea: how about people get together and create a wiki specifically created for mods? I know that some people may argue that ModDB is already out there, but frankly ModDB is just not as user-friendly as wikis are, and often has pitifully little information about each mod. By making an openly editable wiki just for mods, both the PC gaming aficionados and the super-psycho-relevance-police (jk, guys) can be happy. Just a thought. Chef Brian 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EDIT: I'd like to add very quickly that if this article survives I have to question why exactly the Half-Life mods were deleted by such strong public opinion. Sounds like favoritism to me. Chef Brian 01:23, 14 December 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.