Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empires

Add links
From 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 was Delete. Looking at the opinions of established editors, and looking at the points raised, there would appear to be a consensus to delete. No arguing it on my talk page please, WP:DRV is that way. kingboyk 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empires

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Non-notable game mod. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Doesn't seem to be written about by any reliable independent sources, at least, not in a non-trivial way. (Wow triple negative, go me!). Anyways, delete for lack of verifiability without OR. Wickethewok 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Appears to be a notable mod for a very notable FPS. References appear to be legit for the subject at hand. Caknuck 18:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep! A very interessting Half-Life 2 mod with an innovative gameplay. The mod is very close to the release of version 1. And there is of course an active and growing community! I see no reason for a deletion. -- Sensenmann 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (vote changed, see below) unless there is sufficient evidence of notability, which there currently is not. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete I am returning to revise my vote from "Delete" to "strong delete" after being canvassed by Nuka5 (on my talk page: see 'Empires' Wiki, Which you have opted for deletion).
      Nuka5 says that "what we do not need now is for our Player Manual to be deleted" (which breaches WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, item 4). Nuka5 also says "we are still developing a fan base" (which possibly breaches WP:NOT a social networking site). I have checked the article again, and it seem clear to me that the article is structured like a manual, rather than as a guide to the game's significance and history.
      As pointed out elsewhere in this AFD, there are plenty of free wikis available if the gaming community wants to use a wiki to develop their manual, but wikipedia is not the place to do it.
      I think that this is a useful opportunity for us to stress to gamers that we do mean what we say in WP:NOT: if you try to use wikipedia as a repository for your manual, the article will be deleted. Good luck with the game development, folks, but wikipdia is the wrong place for it. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Question Where does the article itself say anything with regard to "instructions or advice , suggestions, or[...] "how-to"s," barring those nescessary for the description of its subject? I would also like to point out, for the sake of some continuity in this discussion, nuka5's post near what is now the bottom of the page, where he retracts his statement. FalconXVI
    Comment': A huge amount of material which belongs in a manual was removed a few hours after I wrote the above: see diff of edits by Mlittle 22:49, 26 October 2006, and the artucle is now much further from being a manual. However, it still contains neither an assertion of notability not evidence of notability, and we have repeated statements here from the game's fans that the purpose of the wikiedia entry on the game is to attract more users. I believe them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Regardless if it was created to "attract more users", that's not the point now. The article is on Wikipedia, and could use a cleanup, but all in all it breaches no policy. And what little it does breach can be easily cleaned up with the use of different cleanup tags like {{cleanup}}, {{fact}} etc. Havok (T/C/c) 08:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I see no evidence this is a notable mod for Half-Life. It won "mod of the week", but that isn't much in the way of notability in my opinion.--Isotope23 20:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there aren't any reliable sources in the article, and the article is mostly game-guide material (types of units avialable, cost to build each, etc.) anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a NN game mode. 20:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Following the canvassing of votes off-site, the sock-puppetry, the harassment of people who have already made their decision and the comments made by people who have come from the Empires forum just to say 'Keep' here, I have also revised my decision to a strong delete. Wiki is not google, Wiki is not a game guide, wiki is not a directory, wiki is not indiscriminate information, in addition to the numerous reasons given by Brownhairedgirl. Blame yourselves Empire players, you and your conduct brought this turn-around on yourselves through your thoughtless actions. The Kinslayer 15:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please remind yourself Kinslayer, that this is a discussion about the notability of the Empires article, not a discussion on the conduct of Empires players. Your comment "Blame yourselves Empire players, you and your conduct brought this turn-around on yourselves through your thoughtless actions." reflects poorly, I feel, on your ability to focus on the actual discussion. When you judge an article, do not judge it based on the actions of any antagonists you come acrossm judge it on the contents.MLittle 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)MLittle[reply]

Comment Appears to hold some sort of grudge against the game and it's fanbase as noted by his preference of deletion of article instead of improving and as can be derived from where one, The Kinslayer, irrelevantly states: "Blame yourselves Empire players, you and your conduct brought this turn-around on yourselves through your thoughtless actions."Deepowered

  • Reply - Not true at all. The more of the people who comment on this AfD, the more you make it look like it's been created for advertising, garnering more fans (social networking) and as a game guide (WP:NOT). So by thoughtless I mean 'Due to your inability to actually understand any of Wikis policies, you are digging the article an even bigger hole to climb out of.' Next. The Kinslayer 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has been featured in the german magazine PC Action (June issue), receiving their "Super Mod" award. It was featured in GameStar magazine (issue No. 07/06) and was placed on their cover disc. It has received two "Mod of the Week" awards from Planethalflife.com, once in March and the other in July. It is an entrant in the Independent Gaming Festival's 2007 Modding Competition with a good possibility of winning. Last year's winner was Dystopia, another Half-Life 2 that was nominated for deletion several times and successfully retained its right to exist. Krenzo 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above is the only contribution by Krenzo. The Kinslayer 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're incorrent. What are you basing this on? Look at this article's history and discussion page. I've contributed to this article. Krenzo 17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thank you for proving my point. The Kinslayer 18:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning undeclared COI in a comment below at 01:06, 30 October 2006, Krenzo also acknowledges being a developer of the game. It appears that Krenzo has anonymously edited an article in which he/she has a clear conflict of interest, and has also cast a vote here without declaring that COI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some sort of witchhunt? The information provided by Krenzo is all verifiable from different sources and does not make the subject seem better then it is and his points made here are still valid. First you accuse him as being a sock/meatpuppet by claiming he did not contribute and now he's being hanged for doing so? You just swing everything your way as you like it. L3TUC3 23:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply "Undeclared COI" is not important in this discussion. The only possibly relevant parts of COI are that "If you write in [an article] about yourself [et al.] you have no right to delete or control its contents:" Krenzo is not trying to control or delete the article's contents, and that when writing about oneself et al. one might overestimate their notability- again irrelevant because third party references had been provided. FalconXVI 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's a remarkably narrow reading of COI. There is no witch-hunt here: I am just pointing out that when some admin comes to close this AFD, they may wish to consider how to weight the input of someone who has only just registered on wikipedia, and who also has a vested interest in the article, a vested interest which was not declares upfront. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Regardless of how narrow the interpretation is, krenzo's argument is valid whether or not there is a conflict of interest. We must assume that the person who does close the AFD is going to judge the validity of the arguments within the context of wikipedia. Therefore character when posting the arguments should be irrelevant. FalconXVI 03:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: from WP:AFD: "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - because krenzo is a god and he says so! Also I thought that wiki was a just a knowlage base that is intended to keep growing. There is no need to remove this artical it just need to have some differet stuff put into it. supaste 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above is the only contribution by supaste. The Kinslayer 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - You thought wrong. Please look at WP:NOT (though I doubt you will.) The Kinslayer 15:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep THIS mod has a growing community, and as it is a more complicated mod, seriously requires a database whereby new players can learn how to play. Non Notable? http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html is evidence that it receives almost a million player minutes per month, and is more widely played than The Battle grounds and Half Life 2 Capture the flag. At highest, I have seen this mod generate almost 2 million player minutes. but this is a growing mod, and to introduce new players to it, they require an accessable source of information. without this, the mod, the community, the several clans, and the hours and hours of hard work will die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuka5 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Although somewhat lacking in information relating to the actual gameplay of this mod, the point of a wiki is for anyone to edit and add to the article so that the relevant information is displayed. To delete this article instead of improving it is nothing short of a failure of the wiki system. As far as notability goes, I can only add to krenzo's entry that it has also been mentioned in a few weekly steam news updates. - Deepowered
    Comment The above is the only contribution by Deepowered. The Kinslayer 15:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a great mod and I look forward to trying it out. However, the encyclopedia is not the place to develop the user guide. L0b0t 22:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am a major player of this mod myself and this should be kept. The way it is now though should be chanced into a more fact and about the game. The current wiki layout is alright but still can be fixed. This should be kept though. My Empires name is Cyber(Gunners_Yeyz) JoseSkinner
    Comment: the above vote is the only contribution by JoseSkinner. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definately worth keeping, the mod has a worldwide playerbase and is by far one of the best Half- Life 2 mods. It is currently entered into the Independent Gaming Festival's mod competition, hence i would regard it as a noteworthy mod. Jabbers_01
    Comment - The above is the only contribution by Jabbers_01. The Kinslayer 15:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, just discriminating against blatant votespamming. L0b0t 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought this wasn't a contest, but rather a discussion on the topic of validity of this article. Why then the user in question feels necessary to point out the "post counts"? Is this a new Wikipedia policy to disregard valid points from "red names" or folks with few contributions? --Chahk42 18:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No problem with low post counts. It's meatpuppets that are against the law. The Kinslayer 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Name-calling, disregarding the facts and avoiding direct answers. Did I miss anything? I still have not received a reply as to why pages such as Weapons_in_Half-Life_2 and List_of_Weapons_in_Halo_2 are allowed existance over the Empires article. --Chahk42 20:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Because I judge articles on their individual merits, not in comparison to another (equally dubious) article. And this article fails on more than just notibility, (Which we're still waiting on the evidence for). The Kinslayer 20:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Re: Apparently this is not true, since you have changed your mind about this article's notability solely based on actions of other users and not on the article's content or any other appropriate reason. Personal squabbles have no place on Wikipedia. --Chahk42 19:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia's verifiability page states that "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Conversely, if an article does reference reliable third party sources, Wikipedia may have an article on it. Even if the official website and the material that can be found through it do not meet the criteria for reliable third party sources (which, according to WP:RS, they do), the other references already mentioned here certainly do. Granted the article has its flaws, but that in and of itself is no cause for deletion. --FalconXVI
    Comment - The above is the only contribution by FalconXVI. The Kinslayer 15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Though I fear it might be lost amidst the rapid additions to this page, I would like to point out the obvious. As anyone can see from the large attention box at the top of this page, "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)." Forgive me for thinking that this applied to all, rather than simply those who regularly edit wikipedia.--FalconXVI
  • Keep Though the page could certainly use improvement, it is an important entry as it gives information about the game, and directs them to where they can get further information. Empires has a game guide already, and a wiki to support players who wish to learn more. This page does not need to be deleted, it needs to be refocused to explain what the game is, and it's roots. For this reason, and the game's recent accomplishments, deletion is the wrong policy. M Little 03:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC) MLittle[reply]
    Comment - The above is the only contribution by MLittle. The Kinslayer 15:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just fyi, there's a Wikipedia spam drive post on their forums. I won't bother linking to it, but thats the reason, of course, for the massive number of new users. Wickethewok 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply That should not be relevant; "deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks)." --FalconXVI
  • Keep - This mod, is very worthy of its spot. Not just because of the lack of entry, if its lacking, there are hundreds of people who could just edit this Wiki entry. But the game itself isnt what keeps me coming back, its the people who play. The developers are among the greatest, the back story is solid. This mod, even if its in infancy, deserves its place among. If this article is making you pee your pants, then you have no life and require a diaper. Cause you have no right to say this mod is so-called NN, cause you have never looked upon the Empires Community. No matter how big or little we are. We'll F*****g pwn your n00b asses on this mod.

Also wicket, dont mess with a well established community, even though you never fit into anything and must post articles for deletion, we stand for whats right of our beloved Mod. [[User:DeadReckoning|DeadReckoning]

*Comment - Sock-puppeting and canvassed votes aside, this article still warrants keeping. It's ranked highly on Valves played games list, it's been featured in PC Zone and other magazines, (I'm pretty sure it was included on a PC Zone DVD too) and as long as we source this information, then the article should be wikiworthy. I don't have access to any scnas of the PC Zone article, but I can at least find the issue it was covered in (or try to find something in their online database. And FYI DeadReckoning, threatening (veiled or otherwise) another wiki user for disagreeing with you opinion really isn't going to help your case. The Kinslayer 11:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - A usefull introduction and guide to a still growing mod. Planet Halflife thinks this mod is noteable, so does Halflife2.net and many other Halflife2 related websites. How can a mod that has over 3 years of development, very strong gameplay, regular bug fixes and a growing community not deserve one page on Wikipedia about itself? Incomplete, maybe, but definitly worthy of its own page. Dizzyone99 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: the above vote is the only contribution by Dizzyone99. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - You can always tell the people who have been canvassed into voting from off-wiki. They never know how to argue successfully. It's not enough to just say that. If you want to actually help save the article (due to this NOT being a vote, as stated at the top), then how about providing a few links to news sotries or awards so people can put them in the article and address the reasons it was nominated. How can a mod that has over 3 years of development, very strong gameplay, regular bug fixes and a growing community not deserve one page on Wikipedia about itself? Incomplete, maybe, but definitly worthy of its own page. - None of this, unfortunatly, is considered a valid arguement for allowing an article to continue. We need news articles, awards, official Valave rankings, on and offline sources, not people saying 'But it's popular, and a lot of time has been spent on this mod,' The Kinslayer 14:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that all the red-linked usernames above appear to have made no contributions to wiki other than to 'vote' in this discussion. The Kinslayer 14:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I've added the sources to the article that I can verify. I have scans of the sources cited. It'd be against copyright, however, to post images within the article. If you want to see the proof: [1] and [2]. According to Uncle G's guidelines for notability: "The primary criterion for notability is whether the subject of an article has been the subject of non-trivial published works by multiple separate sources that are independent of that subject, which applies to all classes of subjects." These two sources meet this requirement. This nomination for deletion was not about whether the article is a game guide. It was solely based around the "notability" of the subject. If other things about the article need correcting, then the polite way of bringing this to attention is to mention this on the discussion pages. According to Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, "Before nominating an article for AFD, please: ... first invite discussion on the talk page if you are at all unsure as to the article's worth. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!" As you can see, Wickethewok nor anyone else has proposed any problems this article needs to correct in the discussion page before it was nominated for deletion. As for questions about my credibility, if you checked the discussion or history of this article, I've contributed to it before and did not create a new account solely to post here. Are you basing my credibility solely on whether I've created my own user page yet? The Independent Gaming Festival had 35 total mod entries for 2007. Krenzo 16:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good, but unfortunatly the article still fails on just about every WP:NOT policy going. The Kinslayer 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Krenzo, thanks for the links. I have checked them out, but they only confirm my conclusion that this article is a "strong delete". First, they prove to my satisfaction tht the game does exist. Good, but I never doubted that.
        However, all we have is two links. One is a half-page story, and the other in German. Sorry, but that small a media footprint does not amount to notability in this field. The news-stands are stashed with mags on gaming, and there apears to be a lot of online coverage too: in that field, I would expect that a notable game would have at least dozens of articles, preferably hundreds or even thousands of readily-accessible coverage. The fact that we have had so much discussion in this AFD but only two references is, to my mind, rather overwhelming proof that whatever its intrinsic merits, 'Empires' is a long, long way from notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Please bear in mind that the subject is not a retail product (it's freely downloadable user created content as opposed to a $50 professional developed and published game) and a feature (be it half a page in a foreign magazine) is a very big thing. I feel the footprint should be regarded in proper scale. Reviews and features are fairly uncommon for mods save for the few niche sites that are available. L3TUC3 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know this won't be accepted, but i'd like to say that if the article is cleaned up (the article rewritten to a small description and a link to the Empires wiki added), that it should be a lot better than it is now. It's obvious that somebody wrote it without knowing much about the mod (the release date is listed as july 1, 2006, instead of march 3, 2006), and that this may even be vandalism. Just because this is my first edit also doesn't mean i'm a meatpuppet, i just want justice to be served properly. The link to the Empires wiki is http://www.empiresmod.info/

Solokiller 16:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is the first post (made by Krenzo) taken from the Empires forum wikipedia thread in it's entirety: Our article on Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. I'd like it if everyone could go over to the discussion area for the article (via the tab at the top of the article), and voice their opinion on whether it should remain or deleted. It is an important issue as we get a decent amount of traffic from people who discover the article. I think it speaks for itself (especially the last sentence.) The Kinslayer 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think you're right. People want more information about Empires, and they reasonably assume Wikipedia would have some sort of information on it. Krenzo asked people to voice their opinions, not blindly support the article, not indiscriminately flame. I do not see a problem with a Wikipedia article directing interested individuals to places where they can get more information. For the reason you pointed out, that much of the interest gets funneled through here, I can't help but agree that this article is a keep.MLittle 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)MLittle[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't matter weather its a game or not, wikipedia is a encyclopedia the wikipedia article on encyclopedia's actually states that "An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." All this is, is just a record of the history and a rundown of the game and how it works. Which in turn is a part of a particular branch of knowledge. I fail to see how it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia IS an enyclopedia yes but this is a useful article FOR a particular branch of knowledge, I don't know about you but gaming is a particular branch of knowledge last time I checked, or at least a sub branch under technology. Ta16 14:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote Nuka5 says that "what we do not need now is for our Player Manual to be deleted" (which breaches WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, item 4). Nuka5 also says "we are still developing a fan base" (which possibly breaches WP:NOT a social networking site). I have checked the article again, and it seem clear to me that the article is structured like a manual, rather than as a guide to the game's significance and history.
    As pointed out elsewhere in this AFD, there are plenty of free wikis available if the gaming community wants to use a wiki to develop their manual, but wikipedia is not the place to do it. I think that this is a useful opportunity for us to stress to gamers that we do mean what we say in WP:NOT: if you try to use wikipedia as a repository for your manual, the article will be deleted. Good luck with the game development, folks, but wikipdia is the wrong place for it. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Brownhairedgirls says it best. The Kinslayer 20:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay it seems there is a misunderstanding then. This isn't the manual and was never intended as (there is in fact a wiki manual out already as pointed out by Solokiller). The article we're discussing is however poorly written, poorly structured and too specific, but those aren't reasons for deletion. Hence my vote for WP:CU and WP:RFE. L3TUC3 21:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on these pages CLEARLY is important to many people. why do people want to destroy this, when there are so many other subjects that matter little to people. I admit here that I WAS ENTIRELY WRONG. this is not a player manual. it is introducing people to the subject of Empires, giving a brief outline (perhaps it should include a "spoilers follow" tag). I am deeply sorry to have created this confusion. Please recall me saying "this is a player manual", because i was wrong.Nuka5 21:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is indeed a popular mod and lots of work has gone into making it. I don't understand the sudden wave of deleting game modification articles from Wikipedia on the basis of some nonsense bureocratic principles, which have nothing to do with the subject's popularity, necessity or the amount of people looking for it in Wikipedia. JJ45 22:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiability is a "nonsense bureocratic [sic] principles"? Well then... Wickethewok 23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verifiability and reliable sources are a foundation for objective articles, but not a proper reason for deletion if there hasn't been an attempt to improve the article first. In this case they are being used as a tool instead of a basis for deletion and clean-up. L3TUC3 18:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per. JJ45. Well said. Havok (T/C/c) 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable Mod. It looks promising, but it's not there yet. The strident efforts of meatpuppets work against it, I fear. Using Wikipedia as a promotional tool is against the mission of the project. Wikipedia only deals with things that are already famous. When it wins "Mod of the Year" come back and see us. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because Empires isn't famous, doesn't means it shouldn't be listed here, otherwise our own user pages are non-notable. Solokiller 18:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. Our user pages are just that, user pages, they are not articles. Please confine your edits in this discussion to the matter at hand. Does this article meet the requirements spelled out in Wikipedia policies and guidelines? That should be the only topic of discussion here. L0b0t 18:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am noticing that, and this is not meant to belittle anyone, despite the large numbers of people claiming that the article does not meet WP:XY, there is very little solid argument that it does not. Claims in favor of the article mention references and other evidence as support. Claims against seem to be just that. Here is a characteristic response: "This is not a notable game, it is not a notable service, it is not an encyclopedic article, and is violates WP:RS amongst others." This is an acceptable claim, but the poster does not offer evidence in proof. If the question of the articles remaining on wikipedia is to be answered "on the merits of the arguments," then I feel that, despite the number of heads mentioning a certain claim, there is no solid argument behind them. The only solid argument used supporting its deletion, as far as I can tell, is in reference to mentions of the article as a game guide- which noone is claiming that it is- and the concerns of BrownHairedGirl on the subject's notability. --FalconXVI
  • Comment Please bear in mind that the burden of proof is on those who wish to keep the article. If you want to keep it, the onus is on you to provide evidence that the article satisfies the objections raised in the AfD. L0b0t 23:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important information for discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-notability. here, it states that wikis need not be notable. I will not debate any longer which perspective of notable is correct. Nuka5 16:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm just wondering, if you have only one contribution, your arguement is null? How is that fair? Like the above disclaimer says, this is a discussion about how we should handle this article. Not to try and discredit others. Also Keep, the article now has reliable sources, it definately isn't a players manual (if it were, we would've dumped our empires wiki XD), and non-notable? I think being on magazines is notable enough. Makiyu 08:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to mention that I have gone through the article... twice... in order to put strike throughs where I have been quoted as saying "Please do not delete our game guide". This is not because i did not say it, but because i believed at the time that this was to try and delete the Empires own wiki, and not just the Wikipedia Page on empires. I also included this note to try and clear that up: nuka5 has edited to cross out this quote as he realises that it was made entirely wrongly, about the Empires own Wiki, not the Empires Wiki Page.
    Why twice? because someone... who i deeply suspect is an admin trying to win their arguement, went back and deleted the changes i had made, meaning that it looked again like i had meant the comment. Note to whoever so deleted my changes: i have saved this comment to my PC, and will reprint it if my changes get removed again without so much as a reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuka5 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 October 2006.
    • Nuka5, whoever removed those changes did so correctly, and I have just removed your second attempt to edit other people's comments. Please do not edit other people's comments: where someone else has quoted you, that is their writing, not yours. and please remember to sign your own comments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Comment I am still waiting for argument, and evidence, supporting the "delete" position. After having read through WP:NOT again, I am still hard pressed to see how the article violates anything there: The article is not a definition; it is neither origional research, nor opinion, nor discussion; it is neither propoganda, nor self-promotion, nor advertisement (or, at the least, no more so than is necessarily associated with presence on wikipedia); it is not a collection of links; it is neither a personal webpage, nor file storage area, nor dating service; it is not a directory; and it is not an FAQ, guide, or instruction manual. As for the other objection, notability is an inherently subjective requirement which I expect will be evaluated based on the references already mentioned, by whoever posesses the final say in this matter. --FalconXVI 17:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Falcon, since this discussion started, the article has been edited to make it less of an instruction manual, and to fix some of its other flaws. Howver, the lengthy discussion above contains lots of evidence of how this game modification is non-notable, and that is not a inherently subjective test: the game's fans can find only two mentions of it in the specialist press, only one of which is in English, and that one is rather short. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, how is this mod non-notable? It has been spoken of a lot over the internet, and noted a lot as well. Solokiller 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Actually, it seems to be in certain cases. For example, the precedents page says that google is a reasonable test for discovering how widespread an programming language is. A google search seems, in this sense, to be an acceptable measure of how much something is "spoken of over the internet." FalconXVI 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply BrownHairedGirl, how about the WP:GOOGLE? Is that not an example of "spoken a lot of over the Internet" being a valid test of notability? A Google web search on "Empires Mod" brings up many forum posts on the subject, as does Google image search and (to a lesser extent) Google groups search. --Chahk42 15:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment And AGAIN I must remind the folks who want to keep this article, that the onus is on them to prove to us that it is notable outside of the specialized world of Half-Life mods. We do not have to prove that it does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, rather, you have to prove to us that it does. L0b0t 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply That doesn't even make any sense. You just suggested that nothing can be considered notable unless it is notable outside of the area in which it is notable. Carrying that argument to its logical conclusion suggests that nothing is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, because nothing is notable outside of where it is notable. FalconXVI 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've suggested nothing. Rather, I stated that the burden of proof is on those that would see the article kept. If this mod becomes notable outside of the modding community for your particular video game, then you might have a shot at an article. Do schools not teach sentence diagraming anymore? L0b0t 04:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "...prove to us that it is notable outside of the specialized world of Half-Life mods" you want proof from other fields. I don't know if you realize it, but Empires is a mod for Half-Life 2. By definition it exists in that world specifically, and in computer gaming in general. There are now 8 sources in the article supporting our claim, all of them being computer gaming-related magazines and sites. There is absolutely nothing in WP:NN suggesting that sources supporting notability must come from outside of the article's area of interest. Otherwise like FalconXVI said, no article would ever be included in Wikipedia since very few things are noticed outside of their area of influence. Please review the recently added footnotes. --Chahk42 04:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pardon my newbiness to Wikipedia administration, but is it possible to simply rename the article to "Empires (Computer Game)" to signify that it is a mod? --Chahk42 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome and no pardon is needed for being new. The problem with this article is not the name but rather the content. This is an encyclopedia, not a game guide or a list of software mods. If this mod wins some major awards and gets some press outside of the mod community it might be worthy of inclusion but as it is, it fails for notability, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:RS. L0b0t 15:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Arguments based on WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT have been refuted. If you wish, post some solid argument against the refutations. On those issues evidence has been provided, and the burden of proof is then on you to show that those arguments are invalid. Unless, of course, you are so sure of your position that it does not bear argument. As far as WP:NN, numerous references from outside of the Empires mod community have been posted. Are they outside of the Half Life 2 community in general, or the video game community in general? Possibly not but then, they don't need to be. If they did, then, as I already mentioned, nothing would be notable enough to be included, as it would not be notable outside of where it was notable.
And an additional comment, as BrownHairedGirl said, "Please do not edit other people's comments." Removing ad hominem attacks might be justified, removing their associated points is not. FalconXVI 15:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If i recall properly, Counter-Strike, a half-life mod, also means the act against counter-terrorism, yet that article never gets any of this "delete and recreate into that", so why is this article about a mod of half-life 2 nominated for deletion? if it was the Counter-Strike article VALVe themselves would come over to prevent it. Solokiller 12:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently do not recall correctly. Counter-Strike means nothing of the sort. You may perhaps be thinking of Counterattack which is a standard tactical doctrine for defence. Your example is apt however, as Counter-Strike is a well written article about a game that started life as a mod and has gone on to be very notable outside of the modding community. That is just not the case with Empires. If and when Empires gains the notability and worldwide presence of Counter-Strike, then it should have no problem surviving the AfD process. As it stands, this mod is just not well known outside of the modding community the way Counter-Strike and Red Orchestra are. L0b0t 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I point your attention to another Half-Life 2 modification Dystopia_(computer_game), which by your definition does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. Just like Empires, Dystopia is a mod rather than a stand-alone game, and does not have the "worldwide presence" of commercial titles you cited. P.S. By the way, the "download count" on the Dystopia article is a total number of all relared files including game updates and media such as trailers. Should we use similar criteria, the total number of downloads of Empired mod would be doubled. --Chahk42 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, selective pointing out of things. You forgot to mention that Dystopia WON an award at the Independant Games Festival recently (as opposed to a mere nomination.) Being nominated in a batch of 30-odd other mods isn't notable, but beating the lot of them to the award IS. The Kinslayer 09:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, selective pointing out of things. You forgot to mention that Dystopia was first nominated for deletion (the first time, not the second time around), on solely the issue of notability. I'd like to point out that at the time [[3]] there was no mention of third party awards, nor of magazines, nor of player statistics. When the AFD was resolved there was still no mention of third party awards, nor magazines, nor player statistics. In the AFD itself there is no mention of third party awards, nor concrete magazine references, nor concrete player statistics. The result of this first Dystopia AFD was Keep. (As the second Dystopia afd addressed questions of verifiability, it is irrelevant for the notability argument.) It seems that it would be irrational for an article with similar notability status to be deleted. FalconXVI 05:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied: feel free to edit.Nuka5 15:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki should be kept unless it fails one of the following :
-WP:RS/WP:V
Rebuttal: much of the information about the game itself is written by the developers. This is the equivilant of the makers of a movie writing their own plot summary. Thus, the information there is reliable/verifiable
-WP:NOT a social networking site
Rebuttal: Any wiki is likely to generate attention for the subject it is about, and this is one of the reasons that . however, it is certainly (and obviously) not the sole reason for the article, and so is not grounds for it's deletion.


If any of these fail, then the artical should be edited

The artical should not be kept at all if it is not Notable WP:NN. To know what level of notability is acceptable, we must first look at what wikipedia classes as notable. As wikipedia is unbias, it will be assesing all of it's wikis by the same line, above which level all wikis must be a certain notability. thus, to find the notability required for an article to exist, let us first examine other articles that are undesputedly notable enough for wikipedia, to see what level is acceptable.

to say that this article is not worthy of wikipedia, it must definately be less notable that the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appledore_railway_station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_FM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guggenheim_Fellowships_awarded_in_1938
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Playhouse_Theatre_%28Perth%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Toledano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latveria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antlion_%28Half-Life_2%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Gina_Cross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BattleGrounds

These are just some random examples, but if any of these are less notable than the game (not mod, as empires is a total conversion, meaning that all data is new, and only runs off the source engine as many seperate games do) "empires", then the empires wiki should be allowed.

Further evidence for notability:
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires#Awards_and_Press
-http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v678/L3TUC3/EmpiresmodPCgamesjune2006-1-1.jpg
-"mod of the week", Twice.
-featured in PC Zone a few months ago (source citation required)
-Featured in "Update News" several times, for steam, a program that gives information only about key mods, as it automatically opens up to every user of steam, worldwide. (source citation)
-http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html
--showing that the mod has aproximately 1 million player minutes per month.
-This is the same size as counterstike started.
-Quite Popular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires#.E2.80.A1_Verifiable_download_counts

Please feel free to add to any of the topics concerned, though do not delete information please. Nuka5 15:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. I cant even believe this was nominated. Robinoke 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nuka5 has kindly provided us with another yet reason for deletion, with the comment above: "much of the information about the game itself is written by the developers".
      From WP:SOFTWARE: "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden. It is indeed easy for an author to overestimate the notability of their work."
      From WP:COI: "Don't write about yourself or about the things you've done or created.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The first guideline says that it's STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. The second guideline is null, since the creators of Empires didn't start up the article, the community did. The authors just added more details.Makiyu 00:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Neither I nor any of my fellow team members have contributed directly to the ORIGINAL article (before it was nominated for deletion). I thought I had (see above comment where I futilely tried to argue that I was not a "meatpuppet"), but instead I have only given suggestions/comments to those who had started the article (in the discussion area and off site). Krenzo 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, check the edit history [4]. Krenzo wrote the Awards section. L0b0t 02:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then you proved Makiyu's points and made it clear Nuka5 (again) made a wrongful assumption. BrownHairedGirl blindly took that statement as truth while not checking the facts. L3TUC3 04:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was talking about the original article before it was nominated for deletion. The one that me being a "meatpuppet" was based on. Yes, I did add the two sources in that section in response to the original push for deletion being lack of notability (measured by appearance in published works). No, I did not violate the Wikipedia guideline "Creating an article about software you have personally developed is strongly discouraged but not forbidden" as I had not created the article. Krenzo 04:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Krenzo, when it was notes above that your contribution to this discussion was your first contribution on wikipedia, you replied that you did make substantive contributions to the article. The only way to reconcle these statements is that either you ae not being truthful somewhere, or your earlier edits were made anonymously (or under by a sockpuppet).
    L3TUC3, I took Nuka5 on credit ([[WP:EGF[]), but Krenzo has just confirmed Nuka5's claim. And to add to the fun, Nuka5 then edited his/her comment above to remove the source of the quote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean I think that the article should be kept but, that some of the information should be removed. Instead I would suggest the creation of a "Gameplay" section which would talk about the general gameplay without going into specifics about each weapon, class, etcetera. --Credema 05:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search for "empires" on Google will yield Empiresmod.com, the web site for this mod, as the #1 result. Wikipedia's article for "empire" appears as the 6th result for the search. It'd be rather backwards to have the article about the #1 result link to the #6 result for those wishing to delete the Empires article and have it redirect to the "empire" article. Also, a Google search of "Empires" Half-Life 2" yields 3,540,000 results. Krenzo 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Empires is a plural of Empire. The word itself deserves urgency over the game and should reference to empire before the mod. But that's not what we're discussing here. L3TUC3 17:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have Updated the Tidied section again. One of the edits is to change: "written by developers" to the true "written by game Experts". This is why earlier brownhairedgirl has a part saying that this should not be written for developers. remember, that Tidied section is the precise edition of the points made here. if you have any addition to make to it, feel free to edit the section! Nuka5 19:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Warning: I have struck out the previous para, which invites editors to breach wikipedia policy. As per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, DO NOT edit existing text on a talk page such as this. Add comments afterwards if you wish, but as per policy, Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia. If you want to make a freely editable summary of the discussion in userspace, feel free to do so, but it is unacceptable to edit a talk page, because it disrupts a discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Are users on this page using their powers of confusion in creating the stupidest hard to follow AFD ever? This mod is not popular as you can tell from the Steam stats. However, it has been featured in a Steam news post [5] as well as the press mentions in the article. - Hahnchen 05:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied: UPDATED WITH DEBATE, other "tidied" further up the page, which is not allowed to be changed on request of brownhairedgirl, is now out of date. Nuka5 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this section (comment, if you will) shows the outline of the charges against this page, and the reasons why the charges are not legitimate. This


This Wiki should be kept unless it fails one of the following :
-WP:RS/WP:V
Rebuttal: much of the information about the game itself is written by the game experts. there is also edited information from the manual (purpose: to describe how the game functions, important to any wiki). This is the equivilant of the makers of a movie writing their own plot summary. Thus, the information there is reliable/verifiable
-WP:NOT a social networking site
Rebuttal: Any wiki is likely to generate attention for the subject it is about, and this is one of the reasons that . however, it is certainly (and obviously) not the sole reason for the article, and so is not grounds for it's deletion.
-WP:SOFTWARE Rebuttal: much of the information about the game itself is written by the game experts . there is also edited information from the manual (purpose: to describe how the game functions, important to any wiki). Thus, it is not violating this rule.
-WP:COI
Rebuttal: This page WP:COI states that there is only a conflict of interest when the following occours:

  1. 1 What is a conflict of interest?
   * 1.1 Self-promotion
   * 1.2 Autobiography
   * 1.3 Close relationships
   * 1.4 Campaigning
   * 1.5 "Who's Who" directories
   * 1.6 Citing oneself
   * 1.7 Where "vanity" is allowed

As none of this occours on the article in question, this is not grounds for deletion. Furthermore, much of the information about the game itself is written by the game experts, and little directly written by the developers for wikipedia.

If any of these fail, then the artical should be edited

The artical should not be kept at all if it is not Notable WP:NN. To know what level of notability is acceptable, we must first look at what wikipedia classes as notable. As wikipedia is unbias, it will be assesing all of it's wikis by the same line, above which level all wikis must be a certain notability. thus, to find the notability required for an article to exist, let us first examine other articles that are undesputedly notable enough for wikipedia, to see what level is acceptable.

to say that this article is not worthy of wikipedia, it must definately be less notable that the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appledore_railway_station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_FM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Guggenheim_Fellowships_awarded_in_1938
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Playhouse_Theatre_%28Perth%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Toledano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latveria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antlion_%28Half-Life_2%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Gina_Cross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BattleGrounds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_over_fifteen_minutes_in_length
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_with_more_than_one_music_video
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_whose_title_includes_a_phone_number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_with_particularly_long_titles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_about_hair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_in_which_the_lyrics_are_exclusively_nonsensical_words

These are just some random examples, but if any of these are less notable than the game (not mod, as empires is a total conversion, meaning that all data is new, and only runs off the source engine as many seperate games do) "empires", then the empires wiki should be allowed.

Further evidence for notability:
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires#Awards_and_Press
-http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v678/L3TUC3/EmpiresmodPCgamesjune2006-1-1.jpg
-"mod of the week", Twice.
-featured in PC Zone a few months ago (source citation required)
-Featured in "Update News" several times, for steam, a program that gives information only about key mods, as it automatically opens up to every user of steam, worldwide. (source citation)
-http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html
--showing that the mod has aproximately 1 million player minutes per month.
-This is the same size as counterstike started.
-Quite Popular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empires#.E2.80.A1_Verifiable_download_counts
-A search for "empires" on Google will yield Empiresmod.com, the web site for this mod, as the #1 result. Wikipedia's article for "empire" appears as the 6th result for the search. It'd be rather backwards to have the article about the #1 result link deleted.

You cannot add to any of the topics concerned, but I will update this when new evidence comes though do not delete information please. Nuka5 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I would like to note that the majority of posts made here in favor of deletion consist of logical fallacies and ad-hominem attacks.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wickthewock states "Doesn't seem to be written about by any reliable independent sources." Obviously, Wickthewock does not believe in doing his own legwork, or asking in the discussion section or the article itself for relevant sources. BrownHairedGirl states "I am returning to revise my vote from 'Delete' to 'strong delete' after being canvassed by Nuka5." Last I checked, this page was a place for informed debate concerning whether or not an article of Wikipedia truly belongs on Wikipedia, not a place to take out personal vendettas. Nuka5's comments outside of this page do not have any bearing on the illegitimacy of this article, especially since he isn't a contributor to the article. --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the information contained in those comments most certaibly is relevant. How relevant is a matter for discussion, but given the number of accounts created solely for the purpose of participating in this AFD and the canvassing on other websites, the external evidence is one factor to consider. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl goes on to say about the article, "However, it still contains neither an assertion of notability not evidence of notability, and we have repeated statements here from the game's fans that the purpose of the wikiedia entry on the game is to attract more users." Yet anyone who can be bothered to read can see that on the 27th of October, the day before BrownHairedGirl posted that statement, the article included information concerning "Awards and Press," both of which are notable things. --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you can only accept comments concerning the article's purpose if they come from the originator of the article or from major editors. Anything else is extraneous to the issue at hand. --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next, The_Kinslayer proceeds to go off on a mini-rant, saying "Blame yourselves Empire players, you and your conduct brought this turn-around on yourselves through your thoughtless actions." Ad-hominem attacks have no place in logical debate.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The_Kinslayer furthers his foray into fallacies --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...with "The more of the people who comment on this AfD, the more you make it look like it's been created for advertising, garnering more fans (social networking) and as a game guide (WP:NOT)." Prove this point. Do it. That looks like the thesis for an essay, not a stand-alone statement. Back up your arguments.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, we can all appreciate BrownHairedGirl's statement where she declares that Krenzo editing an article about his own total conversion mod is a conflict of interest. Now, had he posted information saying something along the lines of "OMG TIHS MOD AER TEH LEET j00 AER NO CAN PLAY ANY OHTER," I could see her point. However, he posted changes relating to the history of the mod, and adding footnotes concerning relevant sources of information. Who would know better the achievements of a child than a proud father? Who would be better to categorize the trophies on the wall than the creator of the mod himself? COI is there more to prevent politicians deleting unflattering information than to prevent someone pointing out actual fact.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrownHairedGirl then continues to use information unrelated to this discussion itself, Nuka5 nagging about BrownHairedGirl's deletion vote, as "evidence" in favor of deletion.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last I checked, Nuka5 was NOT in the list of those who had contributed to the article itself, and as such his behaviors are irrelevant to the deletion discussion itself.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, not so. Nuka5 is one a nunber of new editors who have mounted a massive campign here, as a result of external canvassing. The capaigning has raised serious doubts about the commitment of the editors involved to following wikipedia guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there ANY chance that we can keep this discussion concerning deletion about the article itself, or is one of the main criterion for being an admin on Wikipedia an inability to keep personal issues outside logical debates? As ad-hominem as that last statement of mine is, it is most assuredly a valid question.
  • On another occasion, BrownHairedGirl goes out on a limb and says, "One is a half-page story, and the other in German." Does she mean to imply that an article in a German-language magazine (Germans not being native English speakers, the primary language the mod exists in) is worth less than one in an English-language magazine?--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. This is an English-language encylopedia. If a subject is mostly notable in Germany, that may make it less relevant to an englishlanguage encyclopedia. If thev game mod is reaalaly notable, why is there is so little covergae in the English-language press? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I don't know of any German documentation for the mod. It may exist, but if it doesn't then an article in a German-language magazine is actually worth a HELL of a lot more than one in an English-language magazine. I doubt most mods get that kind of coverage. But I'm not done yet! I've still got a few quotes to go through! I would bother to post some of The_Kinslayer's comments relating to Chahk42, but Chahk42 closed the argument nicely with the statement, "Personal squabbles have no place on Wikipedia." But let's keep on the positive notes, with FalconXVI's successful ability to read the obvious red box at the top of the deletion page! "'deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).' Forgive me for thinking that this applied to all, rather than simply those who regularly edit wikipedia." Reason voices itself! Indeed, as you go further down the page, we hit a plague of comments concerning "is the only contribution by such-and-such." Are those in power blind to their own rules? Are words of wisdom spoken by a newcomer less important than words of wisdom spoken by your best friend? Words of wisdom are words of wisdom, regardless of who speaks them. --Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Please read WP:AFD, where it says: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight."
      Here we have canvassing, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, an undeclared COI: the AFD rules are very pertinent here. It's a great pity that the many newcomers to this discssion did not take time to read wikipdia's guidelines and to explore the reasons for their existence before launching into this sort of diatribe against those who have sought to uphohld them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it seems the most common arguments come in the forum of accusations of meat puppetry and sock puppetry.--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, there are good grounds to suspect widespread [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry] in this AFD. It is important to wikpedia's functioining that this sort of misbehaviour be noted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Brownhairedgirl? meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry would influence this decision in any way. so far all new users have posted valid comments that add to the discussion. What is your POINT by continuing to mention sockpuppets and meatpuppets? what have ANY of the new members done (with the exception of me, whose incorrections I've done my best to rectify) that is not a problem. Furthermore, COI is only a problem when it's in an article. there's no problem in a group of people defending themselves.
  • I am sorry to say this, but the behavior of several of the administrators has severely shaken my faith in the validity of much of the content on Wikipedia. Now, can we keep this discussion about the relevancy of hundreds of thousands of accountable program downloads, unaccountable (yet undoubtedly numerous) downloads through torrent, magazine articles, and website mentions?--Niarbeht 07:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am here just to further my thoughts on this absolutely ridiculous AFD, I share these sentiments with Falcon and seriously believe that this AFD should be rerun. This page is full of worthless comments that belong to the talk page, just above this comment is an attack on the "validity of much of the content on Wikipedia". Yes, you've had some magazine mentions, but look at the stats, it's NOT a popular mod, less players/servers than Sven Co-op and less player minutes than BrainBread, which probably should have been deleted anyway. How Empires, can in its current state even begin to compete on notability compared to Front Line Force is beyond me. I would have voted keep, had the press mentions turned into player numbers, but this has not happened. Verified download counts are meaningless, if we went by them pretty much every single player half-life map would smash all notability rules. On a positive note, I commend User:Chahk42's improvements to the article, and even given the incredible ill will the Empires community has generated here, it's why I didn't vote to delete. Please re-run this AFD. - Hahnchen 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This mod doesn't exists as long as Sven Co-op or BrainBread, it's doing better than those when compared to the player numbers and player minutes. Solokiller 16:47, 1 November 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/Empires&oldid=1143390072"