Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlegrounds 2


 * 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Battlegrounds 2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any significant independent coverage on this mod. The1337gamer (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar   01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

First time doing this, not sure if this is the proper way or not.

Battlegrounds 2 is a 10 year old free source mod, there isn't going to be much coverage of it from independent news sites. It was one of the major mods for half life 2 back in the early 2000s, but its popularity has dropped. The main places it is still discussed our the website and moddb, which I have linked in the edited page for the mod on Wikipedia. Of course there are steam groups and gamer clan websites, but those didn't seem relevant for a wiki page. There are numerous videos on youtube showcasing the mod with views in the hundreds of thousands. In the modding community for half life 2, BG2 is fairly well known. I will continue to update the wiki page with screenshots and updates if that will help.

I will update the main page with some of these references as well. (Will_Hawke)

Bro Team plays Battleground 2 http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33838347 http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/557427 http://www.moddb.com/mods/battle-grounds-2/reviews https://www.facebook.com/pages/Battlegrounds-2/110892168947170 https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Battle_Grounds_2 http://www.thecarnivoressaga.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1152 http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?374348-Revolutionary-War-Half-Life-2-mod-The-Battle-Grounds-II!


 * Forums, wikis, users reviews, and YouTube playthroughs are not reliable sources. Facebook page is not independent.  None of these help establish notability on Wikipedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How are user reviews for a free product not a reliable source? It's third party, as close to secondary sources as a free video game can get, since it's independent of the mod team. It's a video game, how else am I going to show sources on it if not from third party reviews or discussions? The moddb links show user reviews, media updates, press releases and so on. I'm not sure what else I can add. I did add a french review of one of the mod updates to the main Bg2 wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs)


 * User reviews are self published sources and should not be used in Wikipedia's coverage of video games. See WP:RS and WP:VG/USERREVIEW.  --The1337gamer (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: If that is the case, then this content is better off hosted on another wiki. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and without independent, reliable coverage, it would be impossible to write an authoritative article. On Wikipedia notability for inclusion is judged by the GNG and its associated guidelines, which have specific criteria for link quality. In a sentence, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This is explained at WP:42. –  czar   19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware the requirements for an entry were so stringent. Wikipedia has a reputation for being wildly unreliable. My understanding is that there is a period of seven days before deletion. I will speak with older members of the community to see if there is "coverage" of the mod that meets your requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs)
 * Delete - per Czar's reasoning. Failing the WP:GNG due to no significant coverage in third party, reliable sources. Sergecross73   msg me  02:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You lot have obviously made up your minds to delete it regardless of the sources I proposed and this is simply going through the motions. Go ahead and delete the article and you won't waste anymore time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Hawke (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that, as much as that, if you understood Wikipedia policy, you'd understand that this is a pretty clean-cut case. Also, these generally run for 7 days unless there is a really overwhelming amount of support to keep or delete something. It probably won't be closed early unless a bunch more people comment... Sergecross73   msg me  18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You and your "associates" have made it perfectly clear, hence why I said to delete the page, either now or in due course.
 * Re:

I thought I made it rather clear in the posts above and in the links provided that this is a rather old source mod played by a small community. I doubt we'll be flooded with comments. As you say, it's a "clean-cut case." I tried my best to provide a variety of sources that related to the mod, and they were not acceptable and that's an end to it. The mod can get exposure from other sites. Thank you all for your time. Unless this is your job, in which case you earned your wage.

Tally-ho Will Hawke (talk • contribs)

Delete as it seems more like an advert than an article -- ☣  Anar chyte  ☣ 10:09, 26 May 2015 (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.