Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Mirage

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. There is definitely no consensus to delete the article. There are proposals to merge the article and to rename the article. Further discussion of these issues should take place on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De Mirage

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage from reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST. I have not played Counter-Strike in a while, but Mirage seems to be one of the most played maps in the game currently, analogous to Dust II, which already has its own page. It seems to be just scraping by notability, with sources like: SIGCOV 1, SIGCOV 2, Iffy coverage here. While it's not a firm "keep" I am dubious it should be deleted due to the actual opinion based commentary shown in sources. The page should be moved to Mirage (Counter-Strike), though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should also state that Inferno (Counter-Strike) seems even more notable than Mirage due to its longstanding nature. There are several instances of SIGCOV: [1] [2] [3] and one more that may not be but is still a reliable source [4]. I might think about making that article at some point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability and good sources. Aintabli (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Senator, I served on de_dust2. I knew de_dust2. de_dust2 was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no de_dust2. (Per nom, the sources just aren't there for an individual level like this. It simply doesn't have the legacy or influence as dust.) Axem Titanium (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

lol GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Zxcvbnm found enough sources to meet GNG, just barely. Alternately, this could be moved to draft-space until someone adds a couple more sources, but I do not see why we would not keep it here. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as an unnecessary spin out more fitting of a fan wiki. Both the sourcing and resulting prose are very weak. Take what little it is an add it as an aside on the parent article. Fully support a delete instead if that's what it takes to get a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: If possible, would you do a source analysis of what's already in the article and say how each source fails the criteria? I am highly concerned the article is being judged prematurely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing would need to be astounding to change my mind. I personally don't believe it makes sense to split out aspects of games like "levels" from their respective games, as they generally don't have any independent notability outside of the game itself. It makes more sense to cover them in the context of their respective game. And the current content of the reception section is so mundane and bloated I don't believe it really belongs anywhere, let alone justification for keeping an article. It takes a massive paragraph to say basically say "They said it was good but got dull over time." Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My main question is whether you still believe the article fails GNG outright and should be deleted, as you stated in your !vote. Saying that an article should be merged (by your opinion that it is mundane), but could be kept, is different than saying you will support deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If ESPN calls it the most important map in the game, and Red Bull wrote an entire article on the topic. I'm not clear why this doesn't demonstrate both GNG and the standalone article issue. So I'm for keep. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the VG WP has fairly high standards for what constitutes notability in the context of a single level of a video game and a few mentions from ESPN's esports coverage leaves something to be desired. Red Bull is of course an energy drink company, not a news outlet, so I would consider that source worth precisely zero, since it's just promotional in nature (it indirectly promotes their sponsored esports team). Dot Esports is a situational source at best. We know what notability looks like for video game levels. It looks like Dust II, a level with a long and storied legacy and extensive coverage of its design and development, not this. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
de_mirage is significantly covered in form of videos. WP:THREE: [5] [6] [7] Merko (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes these youtube videos reliable sources? Axem Titanium (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. Though not specifically covered, SELF seems to be the best fit. ArcAngel (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN and Red Bull are both major sports reporting agencies that cover esports. I disagree with your assessment, especially on Red Bull. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to an editorial policy at Red Bull that establishes that it's a reliable source and not just a corporate mouthpiece? I'm not seeing any discussions on WP:RSN. And if we look at the actual text of the article on Red Bull, it's just a game guide for how to play this video game level. Do video game instruction manuals confer notability? If we take the ESPN article at face value, that's one valid source. Where's the other two for WP:THREE? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Red Bull was vouched for as reliable by a Wikipedia admin, and was separately arrived on as a reliable source in the past. It does not appear to be a "corporate mouthpiece, of course" like you randomly claim. The text is not solely a gameguide either, but has several paragraphs about the map in general. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a consensus to keep this page is reached, I will suggest a renaming into Mirage (Counter-Strike map) or something similar as first suggested by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. "De Mirage" is a bad title. Merko (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took a look at sources using the search engine from VG/RS, and there seems to be a lot of coverage of the map from outlets like Dot Esports, PCGamesN, and PC Gamer. I want to say Keep, but I've seen AfDs where people easily dismiss coverage due to Wikipedia not being a game guide and sources often leaning towards it. Here's a couple more sources to evaluate for y'all.

PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PantheonRadiance: they are not RS. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The ESPN article is somewhat nice to have—more length than I would expect. Most other articles have the map as the primary topic, as opposed to passing mentions in, say, a listicle. Unfortunately no book sources, which would have been nice. I would hope that there exists a game design book somewhere that talks about it. SWinxy (talk) 03:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went though and added some sources including an academic article, a thesis, and a few news sources. Just note that Newspapers.com is down so I wasn't able to use that. to the article and expanded things a bit. This is an easy keep for me as the map has been a staple of CS:GO community and has been featured in almost all of the professional level CS:GO Major tournaments for years. There is significant commentary about the map in pro play and within the community. The map is considered one of the key tradionaly designed maps in CS:GO. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support a merge into a list of CS:GO maps. I think that this map just passes, it's a weak but firm pass, but could also see that it could do better as well fleshed out list entry. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes: Newspapers.com is no longer down, if you want to use that. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is that a list of CSGO maps risks becoming a WP:COATRACK compared to individual map articles. In other words there will be endless arguments about which map should be added and it risks overlooking the actual notable maps. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the information identified by Dr vulpes below Jack4576 (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2023 (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.