Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARPIA2


 * 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 14:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

ARPIA2

 * — (View AfD)

Not notable, just a game modification, I asked WP:CVG and they agreed with me--Carabinieri 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What of the other game modifications that are on Wikipedia? There are a lot for other games, and ask anyone in the Nova community, and they will tell you ARPIA2 is the first big one in years… --PACraddock
 * Delete without merge. The first big one in years for Escape Velocity Nova, but that's primarily because EVN isn't a massively popular game, so there aren't a lot of modifications being developed. It's already mentioned on the main article, which is more than enough. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep ARPIA2 was worked on by actual developers of Escape Velocity Nova itself, so, in that sense, it can be considered as more than just a 'user-made patch'.  Besides, why must it be deleted in vague terms of notability?  Futhuremore, a quick Google search reveals more revelant results on ARPIA2 as opposed to Bolo, which has its own article.  Also to note is that ARPIA is in the process of becoming a novel and quite well into the process.  How many game addons do you see becoming novels?  If the plug in itself is not 'notable' enough, then it should be altered to be about the novel, and thus have the title changed accordingly.  After all, are not novels 'notable'?  -TwilightPhoenix 04:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure how the disambiguation page Bolo is relevant to anything. In any case, the existence of Google hits doesn't really mean anything about ARPIA2 except that it exists (which doesn't confer notability). The novel is not inherently notable either, particularly if it hasn't been published yet. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this mod; then review all other mod-based article with a view to merge/delete or total  delete. Mods are inherently cruft -- Simon Cursitor 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd just like to point out that Counterstrike started out as a Half-Life mod and is now one of the most recognizable first person shooters on the planet. I'm not saying that ALL mods are inherently notable. However the statement that "Mods are inherently cruft" is a fallacy. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: no indication this meets the guidelines set out in WP:SOFTWARE --Pak21 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The clear conflict of interest concerning PACraddock's claims of notability concerns me somewhat, but not as much as this mod's lack of sourcing regarding the notability. I'd be a lot more comfortable with this mod if I could see some sourcing in notable third-party publishings. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So what, put up a figure like "In the past four weeks since its release, 75 people have given it an average rating of 96.27%"? -- PACraddock
 * What are your views on the proposed WP:SOFTWARE as a guideline for Wikipedia? --Pak21 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ARPIA2 isn't software, as it is not a self-standing application. Since it's a user-made add-on, unless Ambrosia decided to support it, it would have no reason to be the object of any kind of media coverage. -- PACraddock 7:38, 9th of January 2007 (GMT)
 * And therefore it's not notable and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Also, you have an interesting definition of "software". End of discussion, let's go home. --Pak21 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Please see what we mean by reading Verifiability,Reliable sources, and Notability. These three will tell you exactly what the criteria for notability is and what sources are considered verifiable and reliable. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically, if a few users write independent objective reviews and say for example that it has even more depth to it than most novels, or that it is considered by many players to be "maybe as good as EVN itself", this article can stay/be resubmitted (since it seems it's going to be deleted)? -- PACraddock 7:43, 9th of January 2007 (GMT)
 * No. Please read Reliable sources which you've just been pointed to. --Pak21 08:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * … Thank you, I already did, and there is no clear definition of "reliable source", and no way for me to assume that user reviews on any kind of website are "unreliable". I read every article that has been cited, and nothing excludes objective reviews. Unless there's some hidden message behind these articles that only the Wiki "masters" know of. Indeed, after reading these articles, I find myself intrigued as to how certain articles exist. Just to name another user-made add-on, why don't you try looking at Jaymod? Most interesting in terms of notability and reliable sources. In conclusion, I feel like only half of what has been shown to me is of any interest, and the other half of the replies here have been almost offensive… Kindly, -- PACraddock 13:09, 9th of January 2007 (GMT)
 * 1) WP:RS would seem to me to be very clear on the subject of user comments. 2) WP:INN: nobody is claiming that every article on Wikipedia is in accordance with policy. --Pak21 12:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Given my close ties to the Nova community, I hate to do it, but I gotta !vote delete on this one. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't meet the notability standards. Being produced by ATMOS members isn't an automatic conferment of notability; ExoBattle was made by Matt Burch, but that doesn't mean it has (or warrants) an article. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not evident. WMMartin 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.