Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond the Red Line


 * 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 keep. John254 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the Red Line

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy deletion was overturned at Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_12 as unwarranted exploitation of CSD A7. Game software specifically excluded from said speedy criterion. Procedural re listing to allow sufficient debate. I abstain --PeaceNT (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I presume the rationale for deletion would be Notability? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability issues are to be debated. There are a few sources pointed out in the DRV, so now AfD is a good venue to discuss the legitimacy of those references and find out if there more. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What was the original rationale for this deletion nomination? "Notability issues are to be debated." By whom? Is that the central issue of this deletion request? Drakkenfyre (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * oops, i got the wrong word. it should have been "listing", not "relisting". Fixed. This is the first AfD; I listed it here because there were sufficient concerns about notability raised in the DRV. For the original rationale for deletion, which was subsequently overturned, please see the deletion log. :) Sorry for any confusion. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unreleased software. Only source is it's own page. No reliable, verifiable, and independent sources to show notability or to verify claims. DarkAudit (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: AfD participants are encouraged to read and examine the sources (there is a good number of them) listed at the relating DRV. Thank you. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree (to a point) that those are legitimate sources, I would submit that those sources belong in the article. Most editors, especially those coming in late, would not know that the DRV occurred, or that these sources were provided. It is not the responsibility of the reviewing editor to go digging two, three, or four levels into wikispace to find sources that aren't where they should have been all along. The subject may be notable, but the article and the sources it currently provides fails to convey that. DarkAudit (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Sources have been shown; they are there. Voting to get the article deleted saying that no source exists or giving similar non-notability claims would be in bad-faith. If an editor would like to argue for deletion, s/he has to discuss the merit of those sources and explain why they do not adequately verify notability for inclusion. That argument will hold good, whether the sources are presented in the article or not. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources may have been shown, but after this AfD is over and all the templates and tags have been removed, who will know where they are if they're not with the article where they're supposed to be? How can a nomination or a !vote for lack of sources be in bad faith when a future editor has no idea that sources were provided in a long-forgotten and buried DRV? DarkAudit (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * When the AfD is over, if article is kept, this discussion will certainly be linked from the article talk page. I'll note the links to relevant sources on the talk page so it might be more convenient for future editors. :) Still stand by my point above, though. AfD is meant to discuss the merit of the subject, not the temporarily incompetent state of an article (which is a reason for adding some cleanup tag rather than outright deletion) --PeaceNT (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to add the listed sources into the article so that the criticism of not having the sources mentioned elsewhere listed shouldn't any longer be an issue. As for actual voting.. as i have taken part in the making of the BTRL i feel i need to abstain from the actual AfD decision - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not party to this in any way, however may I suggest an alternative. The content of this article might easily be added to the article on the game freespace 2, upon which BTRL is created. This article contains the story of the release of the source code to the game and even a mention of BTRL. With some simple modifications to each and adding the redirects from BRTL's article to freespace 2's the wiki may be cleaned up, made more complete and readable. --Stringkarma (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being an unofficial modification of another game does not by itself disqualify the subject for having an article - Counterstrike started that way. The sources that have been added to the article after the start of the AFD have me convinced. To those of you who don't speak Finnish, Pelit is Finland's primary gaming magazine with a fondess for the unconventional, and its coverage of BtRL is surprisingly extensive. --Kiz o r  19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see references to PC Gamer UK and Popular Science. It appears to be notable. --Pixelface (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kizor. User:Krator (t c) 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements to the article and Kizor. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements to the article Eltargrim (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2008 (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.