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 Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlefield 1942 mods[edit]

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

This has been nominated at least three times previous; in the time since, it has not improved, only gotten littered with cleanup tags. As I see it, fails WP:NOT, and is comprised basically of links to other sites- linkspam, anyone? The whole premise of it existing- which spawned one of the largest modding communities in the history of gaming - is unsourced and entirely POV. Looking through wikipedia, I find few other modding pages for any other video game, even those with mods up the wazoo- Warcraft III, Counterstrike, etc. The few I find are confined to one mod, such as Garry's Mod. We should put this article out of its misery, or let it be transwikied to somewhere else- but not here! Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Due to the articles gutting and improvement, I now suggest a merge/rename of the content in question, but am confident the remaining info fits WP:V, etc. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note: It would make this a much better discussion if people didn't pop in and only say "Keep/Cleanup per". Right now the only people who have said anything worthwhile to the discussion are Rock, BrightOJ, and Scottie. If you don't have something to add, don't add anything. AfDs are not a vote. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the person saying "per" is referring to another editors reason, then no further reason is needed to be given. It might not be a vote, but saying the same thing over and over is redundant, which is why many say "per". Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree per Havok. Johntex\^talk 06:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Multiple independent sources do exist that can be used to cite information in this article (obviously not all of it, thus it needs cleaned up). List of Half-Life mods and List of Half-Life 2 mods are fairly decent and show that such lists can survive if limited to notable mods. --- RockMFR 20:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how are these mods notable? Most of them have no mention of notability, even on the HL2 mod pages, such as Obsidian Conflict. All the others basically just have 'was ranked so and so by ModDB'. I'm pretty sure that we need multiple third-party sources. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game magazines tend to mention the most notable mods, and I'm fairly sure that with some research, independent and verifiable sources can be found asserting the notability of mods. However, the nomination concerns the list of mods, not the notability of each individual mod. If you feel that a specific mod article should be deleted, please put those up for deletion rather than argue it here. --Scottie theNerd 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --- RockMFR 20:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability for any of these mods, just that it attempts to be a comprehensive list of them all. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This belongs at dmoz, not here. eaolson 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Battlefield 1942 mods have attained public recognition, not just outside of those who play the game such as in gaming magazines- but in the national press. Bfelite 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proof please. (Again.) The Kinslayer 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment For starters, the CNN article War games see sales spike, the Tech TV X-Play review of 1942 mods. I would point out though, it need only have wide recognition within the Gaming community to avoid NN- something it has is spades as well. Various mods regularly appearing in industry magazines such as PC Gamer in addition IGN and other online web sources results in more notability and recognition then many commerical titles. Bfelite 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the reason this hasn't been put into the article at any point in the last 8 months is? And notability isn't automatically extended to every mod living and dead for this agme just because a few of them got reviewed. Only reviewed ones have established notability for themselves. The Kinslayer 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That link (and others) are already in the article. 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RockMFR. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup via RockMFR --BenWhitey 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article needs cleanup, but a list of mods for a notable game is as useful and encyclopedic as any other composite list, as long as they are verifiable. --Scottie theNerd 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Directory. ~ trialsanderrors 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with RockMFR. Also see comments in the previous three AFDs: 3 2 1. AFD is not cleanup, nor should its role be to force cleanup on articles at the nominator's desired pace. — brighterorange (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point, however, is that it has not improved, even with all these AfDs. Unless all of the mods can be sourced for notability, and are going to be, they should be deleted. So far, despite the large amounts of time since the last AfD, little has been done to improve. Saying 'we'll fix it' doesn't fit in this case. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really hasn't been a large amount of time since the last AFD, especially considering that there are 21,000 other articles tagged for cleanup too. — brighterorange (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it HAS been a significant amount since the AfD before that. No work was done, despite the copy and paste 'Keep and clean-up' votes. Guess what? No cleaning up happened from June (the time of the AfD) to December, the time of the last AfD. Then lo and behold, at the last AfD, the same people who said 'keep and clean up' then disappeared never to be seen turned up! Can you guess what they said? Correct! They said 'keep and clean up!'. Can you guess what happened after the AfD dissolved into a trainwreck of non-consensus? Why, absolutely NO clean-up work was done once again. And this in spite of numerous people claiming there are multiple sources of notability. So here we are, 3 non-consensus AfDs later, into our 4th one, and the article is STILL exactly the same as it was the time of the 1st AfD. Any questions? The Kinslayer 15:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not exactly the same, there are more references establishing notability, such as [1] for instance. Bfelite 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to see exactly how much the article has changed. Here's the diff. Perhaps this is not a satisfactory pace for you, but it's certainly not "exactlty the same" (some reliable sources have been added, for instance) and it is fast enough progress for me. — brighterorange (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, lets nit-pick over a word. Geez. The point was that at no point in the last 8-9 months was enough work done on the article to address the issues raised at an AfD, and as a result is nominated again relatively quickly. The fact that the article was nominated 4 times in less than a year should be considered a teeny-tiny hint that the article must have some major failings that aren't being addressed. But if you would rather argue over my using a word in slightly the wrong situation instead of trying to address major failings in the article, that's fine by me. The Kinslayer 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think it's important to rebut some of your exaggerated comments on this AFD. It is unfair to claim the lack of editing on the article to support your position that it will never be fixed, when in fact editing has been done. I don't think the insertion of at least three first-rate sources (CNN, Washington Times, PC Gamer) is insignificant, so your exaggeration is more than slight. For the second point, you're right: Four nominations (note: only by three distinct editors) suggest that some wikipedians have a problem with the article (and I do believe it needs more work still). But on the other side of the coin, the keep arguments by editors in good standing along with the work done on the article since its first nominations should suggest that other wikipedians do not believe those problems are insurmountable. That should be taken into account as well. — brighterorange (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a) We are not a link directory; b) the article had had a ((notability)) tag since November 2006 and there had been no modifications enough to prove the notability of the individual mods; c) while the topic itself is notable, the mods named there are not: the article should restrict itself to the four or five notable mods whose notability have been determined; d) Notability for software not proven. As I have demonstrated, "keep and cleanup" is not an option because, since the last nomination, there had been no efforts to clean the article up. If you say "keep", then assure the others you will work in the article to clean it up. I have just removed all the external links and the "inactive and dead" sections, which are only spam farm. -- ReyBrujo 23:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scottie theNerd. Last nominated for deletion barely over a month ago, too soon for a new nomination in my book. VegaDark 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RockMFR, and also because it's too soon for yet another nomination. -Toptomcat 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as nominator. Combination 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Scottie theNerd and RockMFR, plus was nominated too recently anyway. Constant renominations is just stupid. Battlefield 1942 mods are undoubted notable (not all though obviously, but then again it doesn't even come close to listing all of them), after look and see for yourself that a heap of the mods even have their own pages! Mathmo ^Talk 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, just took a second read through the nominator's reasons for deletion (not that I really needed too, for an obvious case of keep like this article I knew they would be wrong!). Anyway... I came across something which was so funny, the nominator makes references to not finding lists of mods for even big famous games such as Counter-Strike!! gee, I wonder why that is?! Could it be because Counter-Strike is itself a mod! (though of course it has some mods itself, just obviously the scope and number of mods that would exist for a mod is vastly limited compared to otherwise) It always disturbs me a little whenever somebody tries to nominate for deletion something that would be controversial (as this obviously is as it has survived several times before) while at the same time showing a complete lack of knowledge of the subject area. Mathmo ^Talk 13:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is possible to "mod" a mod. While Counter-Strike isn't a particularly good example, Desert Combat for BF1942 has been expanded further by certain communities to form mods like Desert Combat Extended. You said it yourself: even Counter-Strike has mods. I don't see why you're slamming someone for having a "complete lack of knowledge" when you admitted that it's feasible at the same time. --Scottie theNerd 14:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Re-reading it again, I do agree that the nominator isn't familiar with mods. Warcraft III doesn't have any mods. --Scottie theNerd 14:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now who has "no" knowledge- Warcraft III has plenty of mods, mate, including a Starcraft total conversion which is basically Starcraft on WCIII with an updated HUD, etc. So don't slam me for lack of knowledge, bud. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't slam you for lack of knowledge, "mate". I'm wrong in this case; I've been out of the Warcraft III scene for a bit too long. In case you didn't realise, I'm agreeing with your example. --Scottie theNerd 19:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry sorry, I did go ever so slightly over the top in my comment. But my point remains, that it shouldn't be surprising that CS has no page of it's mods because even though it is an extremely famous game most "mods" of it really would be mods of Half Life. For a person not to see that it amazes me from the point of view of a lack of understanding regarding what a mod is. Mathmo ^Talk 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete (See below) - Once again we reach this point due to ne'er-do-wells swanning in, saying 'keep and clean' and disappearing with no intention of doing any clean-up work themseleves, and only returning to the article when it's nominated for deletion again to make there cut-and-paste point again. (In fact I see several familiar names who have voted keep and clean on numerous articles and then ****ed off without doing the work, only to appear later and vote to keep an article that has no work done on it.) This article has been in this state for NEARLY A ****ING YEAR! How much time does this article need for all the vast wealth of sources the keep voters claim exists to be included in it? Face it, no-one gives a damn about improving this article because it is what it is: A directory of links designed to advertise, and as such is completely unencyslopedic and uncleanable. In 6 months time, this unedited article will just get nominated yet again, and the whole wretched process begins again. Does this article serve Wikipedias interests? No. Does it serve the interests of the various people who have put links to their project here? Absolutely. Stuff arguing about it's relevance in comparison to other pages or other mods. That's not the point. The point is that THIS article is essentially a steaming shit-heap that no-one is prepared to touch.The Kinslayer 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm one of those who did vote keep, and I went through earlier today checking all of the links and removing every single one that gives a 404 error. So in that point you are wrong, people (such as me) have made efforts to improve it (better than your wholescale removing of comment without checking it at all). Mathmo ^Talk 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Seriously dude... chill out. Havok (T/C/e/c) 14:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The article has numerous references and has clearly broken into the mainstream- these mods have appeared appeared on CNN! Not to mention lists are common and appropriete for the wiki.Bfelite 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links aren't sources. What we have in the article are links to homepages and links to lists of mods on other sites, but absolutely nothing establishing the notability of any of the mods. And I see no reference to CNN anywhere in the article. Once again these 'numerous' sources that establish notability appear to be as substantial as the early morning mist, and just as hard to get a hold of. Mod databases and homepages don't count as multiple non-trivial media mentions. I see one PC Gamer article cited and that's it. The Kinslayer 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is the link to CNN you asked about [2], though you need to go to the library to look up most of the PC Gamer mod articles as they are not placed online. Bfelite 16:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bfelite is right, magazines such as PC Gamer frequently review mods in their print editions. Mathmo ^Talk 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Be that as it may, WP:V makes it quite clear that no source = No place on Wikipedia. Otherwise whats to stop me listing some mod I just thought of right now and claiming it was mentioned in a PC Gamer article 10 months ago that I can't get my hands on now. (But the CNN articles fine!) The Kinslayer 16:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't really claim that since a source is not immediately accessible to you (i.e. online) that it is not a valid source—WP:AGF of the other editors! As repsects verifiability: in addition to the CNN and Washington Times articles, descriptive claims can be sourced to the mod home pages (primary sources) per WP:V. — brighterorange (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just pointing out the problem with saying 'It was mentioned in this place' when you can't provide a copy of it to back your claim up. AGF fails here because this article was set up to neither help nor hurt wikip[edia specifically, but rather to attract people to a mods individual webpage. This article provides no ionformation on the mods, it hasn't since it's creation. All it say is if the mod is alive or not and a link to the home page, which brings us right back to WP:NOT a directory of links or an advertising facility. The Kinslayer 16:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Consider this. If a user comes to Wikipedia for information, and then finds the article they are looking for in fact contains absolutely no useful information and just provides a link to an off-wiki site, somethings wrong. If users have to leave wikipedia in order to find any useful information about something beyond whether or not work is ongoing on it, then what is the point of wikipedia? The Kinslayer 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are behaving as if a link to a website is not information?!?! I've frequently used wikipedia in the past by going to an article and then from there going to main website thanks to the link in the article. Wikipedia would be massively worse if it didn't have the linking to home websites. 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But if you can't give us a link other than the home page, it fails the requirement for multiple, third party sources. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There ARE, multiple, third party sources in the references- that establish that they exist. That they are notable can be read about in other news articles linked to here, and in the article. Bfelite 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I very much doubt that there are multiple, third party references for each and every one of the mods listed- until you can, the list is nothing more than linkspam. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • • The point is to record history. While this subject's time in the spotlight may have passed, it was notable in its day. We have a duty to make a record of that. Bfelite 17:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment about sources: it's quite OK to reference a print publication with usual details of title, author, date, page number, article title. If someone disputes it, it's up to them to find it and prove the source invalid. Here's a good example. Tyrenius 17:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:V says that Wikipedia is for verifiability, not truth. It may be the truth that these mods are the greatest things to ever grace the Earth, but wihtout an independant source to verify it it won't survive an AFD. If you want to keep the record of it, archive it on a personal site or something. WP:NOR also runs counter to the part about our duty to record things; any thoughts have to have been published before. Hbdragon88 22:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • They DO have verifiability. They HAVE been published and written about by third parties, the wikipedia's job is simply to note that these existed, and people took note (such as CNN). Bfelite 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment. I'd just like to point out that this AfD is not concerned with whether the mods are notable, merely whether a list of them should be kept. Whether then individual mods are notable or not should be take up on their own article page or their own AfD page. My opinion above is that this list should be taken care of as a category, not as a list, of which we have too many already. eaolson 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment The individual notablity is exactly what what people were concerned with, because the article is the sum of its parts. The mods were merged here because, together they were deemed notable in previous AFD's. Bfelite 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not again... //Halibutt 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This AfD is based on this revision of the article. Since the AfD went up, the article has been totally changed. Please check the new article and consider changing your vote or not. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - I'm abstaining over the new version of the article, since it does now meet the policies it was so badly failing at the time of the AfD (and the three before for that matter). And to the people who responded to my request for sources by saying they were already in the article, no they weren't. Adding the sources after I've already commented on them is not the same as the sources being there from the start, which they weren't. The Kinslayer 09:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Since this is apparently directed at me: This is the revision where Dåvid ƒuchs added the AFD tag. It quite plainly includes the PC Gamer, CNN, and Washington Times references. I simply can't understand your claim in light of this. — brighterorange (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Brighterorange, all those references refer to the same mod. As much, two references one, while the other references a second. In other words, those particular mods are notable enough, all others were hanging out in Wikipedia thanks to the notability of those two or three ones. I have cleaned the article to demonstrate this. As you can see, all other mods have zero references from reliable sources. -- ReyBrujo 15:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Battlefield 1942. The two mods listed are notable and verified, but the actual content here could easily be merged into the main article without making it overly long. No prejudice against breaking out again if more notable mods are found. --Pak21 10:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on Current State - apparently someone has actually gone through and removed the cruft and sourced the stuff that's left. I'm pretty sure that its fine now, but I suggest either a merge to BF1942 since its much more manageable now, or rename to something different (list doesn't really fit). Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I did, sadly I do not expect the article to stay this way for too long. I have already tried to remove the tables from the article two times, and the changes were reverted. Expect the tables to be back either in a couple of hours, or as soon as the AFD is closed. -- ReyBrujo 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Battlefield 1942. Certainly when all nonverifiable mods are removed and we are really left with a summarization of a CNN article, this doesn't even deserve to be classified as a stub and is information that people should only be seeking in the article for the game itself. 64.213.64.146 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Far more then nonverifiable mods were removed. For example, PC Gamer mod of year winner Eve of Destruction, given a nationally recognized award- was removed- becase the people seem superbly ignorant about what they are editing. I only wish theirability to do research was as great as their lack of respect for the subject matter. Bfelite 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) There was no reference to GameSpy there. Must I remind you again that the burden of evidence lies in the one adding or restoring content and not the one removing it? -- ReyBrujo 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, GameSpy or PC Gamer? -- ReyBrujo 22:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  PC Gamer Bfelite 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is not the improvement drive forum. Yamaguchi先生 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Highly relevant. Also I think it's rather offensive that you list an AFD then try to discourage discussion. Keep/Cleanup per is a valid input. Sounds like someone has a little bit of a WP:OWN problem. Plus I am not happy with the assertation "all the others basically just have 'was ranked....'".....basically you've just shown that you don't care what kind of evidence is shown for notability. Yeah, this deletion discussion upsets me. It's survived 3 times already. Maybe that means it deserves to stay, especially when so many people think it's a relevant topic? (full disclosure: I'm a member of a development team for a commercially successful mod) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, as thats a slight affront to me, I feel I should respond... I think it's rather offensive that you list an AFD then try to discourage discussion - AfD's are not votes, as Wikipedia clearly states. If you'll look above, you'll find lots of keeps- but no reason for the keep. The point is not to say I want it to be kept per XX, but to contribute to an ongoing discussion. Secondly, to the Maybe that means it deserves to stay, especially when so many people think it's a relevant topic? That's certainly one way of looking at AfDs. But seeing as its been no consensus all of them, that basically means that there's a loud enough kicking and screaming faction that it can't be deleted in full conscience. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but just because it survives doesn't really make its merit. Finally, to the most important part: Plus I am not happy with the assertation "all the others basically just have 'was ranked....'".....basically you've just shown that you don't care what kind of evidence is shown for notability. WP:NOT calls for multiple, independent sources- in other words, ModDB, a massive modding site, is only one. Just because its on one site doesn't make it notable (for a sort of comparison, just because a book's for sale on Amazon and has been rated does not make it notable under wikipedia guidelines). I'm glad you disclosed your vested interest; as I stated above I believe that in its thinner form it could easily be merged into the BF1942 article, but people keep on adding back in the cruft, which suggests that once again, if the AfD is no con, it will just become bloated again. A merge is more effective. Qestions/concerns, PM me. no need to clutter up the AfD unless it is directly related. Dåvid Fuchs [talk • contribs] 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Havok, If you just agree with what someone else already said, it is perfectly reasonable and accepted practice to just say you suppor their previously stated positon. There is no need to write out a new pithy comment each time if someone has already captured well your belief on the matter. Please don't dismiss the views of other editors just because they happen to state they agree with a previous contributor. Johntex\^talk 06:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I want to shout. "Keep and cleanup" is not a valid opinion if the article stays the way it is. If you check the article history, back in March 4, 2004 (yes, just shy of 3 years ago) the article got a table for the mods. Do you see? The table was first created 3 years ago and since then more fields were added to the table, the table became a little more beautiful, but the article stayed in the same way, without reliable references. "Keep and clean" is not an option because nobody cared about this article. Those who voted "Keep" never cared about checking the previous versions of the article, nor helped with the clean up. They either are gamers who would object deletion of even "List of RGB colors used in Master Chief's helmet", have only edits in articles related to video games, or they were interested in the topic because they play Battlefield and want to have a quick list of mods so that they can download them. Truly speaking, if not for my complete blank of the article and User:Bfelite's effort to find references when adding new mods, the article would have spent 3 more years in the same state. So, next time anyone says "Keep and cleanup", please stop shouting blasphemies to your Halo mates, or congratulating yourself in how many enemies you killed on the night, sit down and edit the dang article to shape. We don't need keep votes, we need people cleaning the article. Thank you.

  PS: Truth can hurt, so if anyone feels hurt, sorry. Yes, this is the "most civil." -- ReyBrujo 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep' - article adheres to policy and is verifiable with apporpriate sources as cited in the article. As the nominator states, the article has been nominated 3 times and kept each time. It's verifiability has not decreased, so there is no need to be renewing this discussion. Johntex\^talk 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has gotten "No consensus" three times, not "keep". Something very different. Havok (T/C/e/c) 08:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on comment The user didn't say the consensus was keep three times, rather that it was kept three times. That could have resulted from either three no consensus or three keeps, or even a mixture of both. Mathmo ^Talk 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (I changed my mind again) - The article is rapidly going back to how it was. And Mathmo, the user was trying to assert that the article is worth keeping because it's been kept after 3 afds. But they were no consensus keeps, meaning that we did NOT agree that this article was worth keeping. Instead people with vested interest in keeping the article created such a stink it was impossible for anyone to have a rational discussion. The Kinslayer 09:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see what you mean about "..rapidly going back to how it was.", the article is better now then its ever been. That an article will revert or not is not the subject of this AfD, the subject right now is verifiability, and right now it has sources for its entries. We don't delete articles on the merit that it may or may not be changed in the future, as changes will happen now and in the future regardless of what state it is in now. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Try looking at some of the sources. I did. All they are are links to the mods homepage and a link game magazine websites. Not the article the game was supposedly covered in, just the website. Regardless, my decision is not changing this time, and indeed, I'm not going to follow this AfD anymore. The Kinslayer 11:29, 26 January 2007 (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.