Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The BattleGrounds

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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BattleGrounds

This article reads like a game guide and an advertisement and, while while it may be an interesting concept, I do not see where this meets the criteria for notability.

Also note that, though I have listed a few HL2 mods for deletion recently, I did not list them together so that each can be evaluated separately. I think each article could reach different consensus and should be evaluated separately. Slavlin (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this is actually a good candidate for rescuing. It is a little user manual styled, but contains information that people would be interested to find, I see it as being not much different from Texas_hold_em. Erick880 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you feel that it can be re-written and sourced with credible sources, I think this could be a unique enough mod to allow for notability. If we can't get consistent high level media coverage, I would say significant low level media coverage in multiple publications and/or countries might do. I would be happy to know I was wrong on this one. That is why I didn't lump everyone of the mod nominations I have made recently together in one AfD. Slavlin (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable game mod, no sources, and bizarrely trying to compare it to Texas hold em isn't exactly helping its case any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over 28,000 Google hits say it is notable. At least one person claims to have found it useful[1]. If you find it so terribly written, then rewrite it. But it's a damn game article, not a grad paper on nuclear fusion! It doesnt really need notes. All the information it contains is readily verifyable from the sources provided and from some of the 28K+ Google hits previously mentioned. Or you could simply PLAY the game and see for yourselves...oh wait, that would be original research wouldnt it...we can't have that! Once again the manic, pedantic deletionist mentality which has helped make Wikipedia a joke, manifests itself. "All the world's knowledge" now is as truthful as "Anyone can edit"...or if they can't edit or write worth a damn, simply try to delete the work of others who can. And please don't ask me to Assume good faith, that tired, meaningless mantra holds no store for me and hasn't for a long time.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We dont usually cover mods, unless there are real sources for really major notability. RDH, are there any actual sources listing the most popular Half Life mods, or a review by a recognized reviewer, not just a fan? I'm open to non standard sourcing for this sort of article, but there has to be something. DGG (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. I have to agree with DGG that the sources provided do not meet even the most relaxed requirements. As such, the article contents are not properly verifiable. — Satori Son 16:03, 1 February 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.