Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Chivalry (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 Keep JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Chivalry (Mod)

non-notable Half-Life 2 mod. Probably good fun, but no indication that it's a particularly notable mod, Google provides a whole bunch of places to download it, but no actual indication from a reliable source that it's particularly noteworthy. Lankiveil (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant advertising. Fails WP:NOTE. The whole article reads like an advertisment. Sting_au Talk 06:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been mentioned in noteable magazines . I can add this information if that would make this more "noteable". I've taken out comparisons and colorization in the text. I've also added it's features in gaming magazines in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guammer (talk • contribs) 07:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non-notable mod games. The article has no non-trivial independent reliable sources to keep this page alive in Wikipedia. Dekisugi (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Some major changes have been made to avoid the appearance of an advertisement and to make this more researcher friendly rather than "consumer" friendly if you will. Please review once more to see if the text is now more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guammer (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can someone clarify which PC Gamer magazine issues it appeared in, and what the features actually entail? If it's just a mention, or a "we've put it on a coverdisk, here's the blurb", then that's too trivial for WP:N. If it's actually a substantial review or interview then it needs correctly citing (perhaps in a Critical reaction section). Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the feature is here, the June issue. It looks substantial enough to me. Personally I prefer multiple coverage for notability, especially for indy games/mods, so I will still sit on the fence. But should this be a keep, I'll have a go at working that reference in properly. Marasmusine (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you or someone can plug that in appropriately that would be good. I wasn't sure on what a good way to do that would be other than just the mention. If theres something more suitable please feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.245.128.25 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though there is coverage of this mod in PC Gamer (I'm sitting with the issue in front of me), one article (plus another unverified one in PC Action) fails to assert real-world notability. It's important to put these things into perspective: PC Gamer UK has articles on several mods/freeware games each issue, so it's not like this was just one mod article in an entire issue. Meaning, it doesn't stand out as a notable mod. Una Laguna^Talk 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons below. Una Laguna^Talk 17:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:P User:Krator (t c) 22:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the dozens of recent AfDs on video game related things, the big thing is always reliable sources proving notability. This article has two, so what's left but WP:PROBLEM? I disagree with UnaLaguna that having articles on several mods decreases the value of such articles. News doesn't get less notable when the New York Times of that particular day has more news ... User:Krator (t c) 00:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Krator. SharkD (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. (It looks like this article has changed to add sources since the first few comments.) I find UnaLaguna's reasoning flawed; notability is not a matter of standing out with respect to others that also meet the notability criterion. Our standard is the existence of multiple reliable secondary sources, which this article has demonstrated. I improved it a bit to be more encyclopedic (so please take another look), but it could use some more help. — brighterorange (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability demonstrated by two reliable sources. It's just been released for a month which means that more sources could appear in time, all the better. Someone another (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - keep per above. Notability is adequately asserted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:26, 1 January 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.