Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SourceForts

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro 00:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect that some of the votes originated from sockpuppets, however, discounting the sockpuppets, the consensus is still to keep.
It appears that 98% of the users voted to keep have less than 50 edits, however, there are no strong consensus for deletion, so I'm closing as no consensus for now. --Ichiro 00:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SourceForts

As was agreed in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Half-Life_2_DeathMatch_Pro debate, individual mods for video games are not inherently notable and don't deserve Wikipedia articles, no matter how colorful and well written. SourceForts is another HL2 Mod article and on this same principle, I move it for deletion as non-sense. Additionally, this article and game mod articles of it's kind are advertizements stuck into Wikipedia and are matter more suitable for fan sites and game promotional websites, neither of which is a function of Wikipedia. I nominate this page for deletion as useless fancruft and an advertizement because of these reasons. GestaltG 18:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no free web hosting. Gazpacho 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • SourceForts has its own completely functioning website. The content of the Wikipedia article pales in comparison to it. Can you explain how you think they are using Wikipedia as a free webhost? --Cyde Weys votetalk 02:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4 votes does not a precedent make. Each article must be handled on a case by case basis and in this case I think SourceForts is sufficiently notable. It is constantly maintained and constantly being played. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I just don't see the logic on stating that a mod's wikipedia entry is an 'advertizement'. I guess an encyclopedia entry on soft drinks is an 'advertizement' because it mentions Dr. Pepper. Plus, our article is more of a history of our mod, rather than an overview of its key features. - Stieffers 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If this is an advertisement, are you going to get rid of the CS:S article too? The first version is the most popular online game ever, but if this "precedent" is to get rid of any mod pages, I guess that will have to go, too... Finnegar
  • NOTE As a developer of SourceForts I may be considered biast, hence this is not a vote. However, I believe SourceForts to be representative along with Gmod of a new genre of construction games based on physics simulations. It would seem to be a shame to lose a record of what may prove to be a starting point in gaming history. - Voltaire 22:11, January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Voltaire" has a good point here. It seems to me that the people voting "Delete" have not played this game. If you had, you'd realize how revolutionary it is. It's pretty much the first FPS where you build the map in-game and then go on to fight in it. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It's absolutely ridiculous to use such a broad interpretation of "advertisement". The SourceForts article contains an overview of the mod's history, and while you may not find it particularly interesting, community members do. Likewise, I don't find the history of Bolivia's economy very interesting, but many might, which make it a legitimate encyclopedic entry. I'm curious why you're focusing your efforts solely on Half-Life 2 mods, and not Half-Life 2 itself, or other games. Further, I'm curious as to how you can consider your article on the Beastmaster series, GestaltG, anything other than an advertisement if you consider this article to be such. SourceForts stands as a unique game, offering unique gameplay experiences that defy current genres, and it's certainly one of the first to do so, which may very well turn out to be a landmark in computer gaming history. That alone is plenty reason to consider it a legitimate encyoclopedic entry. -EntRo 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, From a personal perspective I use wikipedia as a first port of call for information on anything. The article is a history and description of a somewhat revolitionary mod rather than any advertisement. -ICR 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I feel this article is worthy of keeping. The article is fairly well written and encompasses not only a description of the mod's features but also of its history, making it more than a mere advertisement. In addition, it is worthy of note as a modification, breaking previous definitions of gaming genres/modes. It is a landmark in mods. 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is probably the best and most well designed mod available for HL2 right now. If you delete this, get rid of the [Counter Strike] article.. after all, CS is a HL1 mod. Why should preference be given to it just because it is larger then SourceForts?
  • Keep, This mod is Very origianl. Granted, Deathmatch Pro isnt very original, just a group of people making small changes to a game already released by VALVe. Sourceforts, on the otherhand, is on the same line as mods such as Dystopia, Art Of Acencion, Counterstrike(when it was a mod), Day Of Defeat (when it was a mod) and coutless otheres that brought in ORGINAL content into the game and making it fun. Also, as a Sourceforts Community member, i see this article, not as an advertisement for the mod, but as a informative article about the History of Sourceforts (which i was around for most of it and can verify its integrity) and how far the mod has come. Kylegar Jan 9th (9:22 PM PST)
  • Keep, This article is just as meriotus of being here as any other mod article, and you don't see event the most trigger happy deleter suggesting that all mod articles get removed. Darthdavid 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Wiki pages are not free web hosting for mods, nearly all mods have sites up before distribution, not to mention distribution servers. If a mod has the ability to host several hundred megabytes of digital content in distribution packages per download then it is able to host it's own web space. Mods are not the game that they modify. Game engines are incredibly open ended and what can be done with an individual game engine. Mods entirely or partially create all new game content and play styles, and have completely separate communities from their senior engines and often the general modding community. Mods are not a lower form of gaming then a retail project such as Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines which is a full length real time role play title made using the HalfLife2 engine. The only notable differences are licensing, profit distribution and the fact that the development teams are armature led and unpaid. The Source Forts wiki page is informative encyclopedic and contains a relevant development and community history as well as purely non-technical facts about the game. It's also the first mod or game to combine base defense game play with capture the flag in a full open 3d environment. The Source Forts wiki page is no more free advertising for Source Forts then any other wiki page is for any other retail release or project. Wikipedia is for everyone. People who don’t play games should not be telling gaming communities information that is highly relevant to us is not valid Wikipedia material. SwiftSpear Jan 9th (12:58 PM PST)
  • Keep, I also do not see why mods of games may not be on WikiPedia. Why would this article be removed? I dont see this article violating any rules. Please state why you want it to be removed, except for your own personal oponion. Because you are against the modding of games, doesnt mean it shouldnt be on WikiPedia. Mods are video games too, just as much as other video games, so they should have the right to have their articles. TommieV 16:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thnk its good to have a wiki page on all these mods as its a good way to get across information about these mods to people who dont know much about them and its more presentable Welsh 16:40, 10 January 2006
  • Keep, This article is nor an advertisement, or a 'personal website'. The link to the SourceForts true homepage is neither highly opressive, or for that matter standing out against the rest of the material. The article is non-biased, and in one of the first, if not THE first entirely-third party based game modification in which physics simulation is the most prominant feature, then this may infact provide interesting background for future readers into the past of physical based games. Khuskan 20:51, 10 January 2006
  • Keep, Firstly, This article is not an advertisement. It explains the history and evolution of a revolutionary mod. If this is an advertisement, then wouldn't the McDonalds article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mcdonalds ) also be an advertisement. After all, it speaks extensively of the food that they have and thats there for no reason other than drawing people in. Secondly, the "agreement" that GestaltG speaks of was made by four people, less than 1% of the people that read wikipedia. Also, no 1 agreement can be made for game mods allowance on wikipedia, all are different. If there was 1 agreement then mods such as Counter strike and Day of Defeat would have to be deleted same as Half-Life 2 DeathMatch Pro. Monty (13:58 PST), 10 January 2006
  • Keep, First off, this is a unique game, many ideas have never been seen before, or if they have been present if past three dimensional games, this is a definitive new blend of creation and destruction. Theres my view on the game, as far as the legibility for deletion is concerned i am staunchly against it, and any other well written, informational pages of Wikipedia. You must ask yourself, where is the harm is this page? Where is the slander? The lies or the "it's the best game of the century" slogans? There are none, this is no more damaging than the wikipedia page for rubber ducks! Furthermore i think it is rather ignorant to believe one topic in one forum discussed by a limited population can, with immediate results create a sweeping and generic moral high ground against all game mods. I would consider such things as being blind to reason and bowing to a mob mentality. At the very least take the time to individualy inspect each case rather than go on a crusade against all mods. After all there are many who say that murder is wrong, yet when war or self-defense is considered people change their minds. No sweeping statements are ever correct. So just let this page be, so that Wikipedia users can find out about this mod if they should so CHOOSE to, nothing here is being forced upon people. Is this advertising? I think not. Once again using the same example, this page makes people want to play (its free anyway) the game no more than the rubber duck page makes people want to buy little bath time ducks. Freols 16:51 GMT, 11 January 2006
  • Keep A unique game it is. I can't see any reason why anyone would delete the article. -BLOODy
  • Keep I personally found it a useful article. It is in no way unworthy of note. I can't see any sane reason to remove it. The Snee
  • Keep, I don't see any reason for removing an informing article. It doesn't matter what the subject is, as long as it is realistic and well written.
  • NOTE, I'd just like to point out that GestaltG's effort to get the Dystopia article deleted has failed, with many more people voting on that one than the HL2DM Pro article. If GestaltG thinks that a four person vote on the HL2DM Pro article creates a precedent where he can assault other articles, than surely the results of the Dystopia article remove such precedent. --EntRo 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE, What has me laughing the most is the pure ignorance of the three users posting in favor of the deletion of this article. It is now clear that many users have found this article useful and interesting. Not only have we stated our opinions clearly, and concisely, but we have also provided supporting details to back our opinions. GestaltG, you have taken a broad and sweeping generalization and tried to use it to your power. Not only were you almost completely wrong, but you have now made a fool out of yourself. As well, the two users posting in support of removing this article have been completely disproved, although I'm not sure how you can disprove the argument of "per nom" stated by Thesquirrel. Those in favor of deleting this article are either completely ignorant to the point where they do not comprehend valid arguments, or they are following a mob mentality of which the mob is extremely small. For the sake of your reputation GestaltG, I am asking that users refrain from posting further arguments as to respect the already downed original poster. -Stieffers 19:58, 12 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SourceForts&oldid=1079980417"