Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold War Crisis


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn / keep. Waggers (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold War Crisis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

What makes this mod more notable than others? What makes mods notable to begin with? AKFrost (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who have objections, I first suggest you look at WP:NOT,WP:NOT. Without the game plot and the game mechanics, these mods have little writable information and really can't go any further.AKFrost 04:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominator's suggestion: Delete or Merge into one list AKFrost (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, it might be a good idea to move these pages to Game info wikia and/or StrategyWiki. AKFrost 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As of time of writing, I will no longer reply to any comments that says "There is an article that's worse/less notable/less suitable." As Oni Ookami Alfador have kindly pointed out, I've repeated it enough times. Please discuss the merits of the pages only. AKFrost 04:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Retraction Retracting deletion request for Cold War Crisis and ShockWave (video game). However, these articles should still be merged in one list seeing that they don't have enough information (and AFAIK, no more since they aren't stubs) to warrant a full article. AKFrost (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am also adding: * For the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKFrost (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Cold War Crisis, weak delete the rest. Cold War Crisis seems to have won awards, and it has independent press coverage in magazines, making it somewhat notable. For the others, I see no similar notability. Huon (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This note was applicable to the Cold War Crisis only-Improve the article and Keep-Add in more references and improve the overall layout of the page to make it more encyclopedic--Quek157 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all I don't see why a very popular mod is not as notable as a standalone game, as I'm quite certain there are several standalone games far less known than Shockwave or Mental Omega that have articles here. Deleting an article just because it's about a mod is certainly as silly a reason as any, I've seen far worse articles than these be kept. It smells of elitism. CodeCat (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all Mods are like webcomics, they may not be something the general public knows about but within their specific community they can be quite respected, like these mods. These aren't the only examples of things notable only within their specific category, and as such I strongly feel these articles should be kept. But then again, knowing Wikipedia's policy on webcomic "notability", I wouldn't be surprised if someone overrules us and deletes them anyway. Strategia (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the problem with these articles is the utter lack of reliable, independent sources. The worst is Mental Omega, which has precisely one showing its nomination for an award it didn't win (I couldn't even confirm the "honorable mention" claimed; the source just gave a list of all nominees). Thus, the article's content isn't verifiable. Take such lines as "It is quite critically acclaimed" or "C&C All Stars garnered much attention in the C&C modding world" - says who? If I were to change the article and write that the mod was a critical failure, could you show me to be wrong? If there are no independent, reliable sources, the mods obviously are not notable (and by the way the same criterion applies to standalone games, too). The one (except Cold War Crisis) most easily salvageable probably is ShockWave, which claims an award for a game unit and a magazine article without providing details (such as the name and issue of the magazine). Huon (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - My main concern with these is that they read more or less like promotional material, while Mental Omega's page is mostly about its plot which amounts to nothing more than fanfiction (Certainly there has been no proof (non I could find) that any of the original developers helped write it. If you remove the fanfiction material in Mental Omega, there would be essentially nothing left. There would only be a couple of lines written about the units (Wiki is not a game manual, or so i've heard), soundtrack, new developments, and trivia (again, according to wiki policy it should be merged or reincorporated). While I'm not against having them in a page under "Mods of Command and Conquer series." I think they clearly don't deserve their own individual pages. On top of that, several important in-game pieces had their articles deleted (Tacitus, Bonus Crates(an C&C-unique bonus), etc.) and "Mammoth Tank" came close to. It would infinitely make more sense that all the canon and official material get documented first and these things later. Plus, IMO, the only thing that will make a mod notable is if it sells money or is acknowleged by the game company. None of which these four would satisfy AFAIK.76.102.199.11 (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is me, forgot to log in.AKFrost (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all For one attempted deletions of multiple articles in the same AFD repeatedly illustrate themselves to be a bad idea (Nearly every one I have been a part of has had to be resubmitted as individual AFDs or just become a WP:TRAINWRECK.)  Also, I agree in that mods are like webcomics in that they can have a large depth of notability and recognition within a narrow swath of people (specifically mod users).  I am all for relisting these mods individually but I still would say at least CWC and it would seem shockwave are fit for their own articles, although needing cleanup.  --  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 02:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know where your "multiple deletions = bad idea" is coming from, seeing that Wiki AFD guidlines have a section just for that. You're clearly alone here in that opinion. Also, Once you remove the plot material and any game-specific stuff as required for games (Wiki is not a game manual). You're left with about three paragraphs(One intro, One description, One list of awards and other material that makes it notable.) or less. That's hardly material on an article that can't be expanded any more. (Again, Plot is nothing more than fanfiction here, and I don't see any material on fanfiction on wiki because they're legally questionable to begin with.) Plus, on top of that, Shockwave is still in its beta stages. When did we ever have a page on a beta that's not a sequel to something? This is, of course, barring the questionable legality of mods to begin with, especially unlicensed mods like this. AKFrost (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you just going to repeat the same nonsense each time someone posts a reason for keep here? We can read thank you very much, we don't need you to repeat everything back.  I never said I wasn't alone in the opinon on the multiple AFD thing and quite frankly (this is a good one here) I don't care!  If I needed my opinions validated by some group of people have them count, I wouldn't be wasting my time on the wiki to begin with.  FYI:  A manual is not a plot synopsis.  A manual contains instructional value.  In fact, the core EVERY well written article on ANY sort of fiction on wikipedia, be it movie, comic, game, literature, epic, etc.  provides some form of plot synopsis.  Otherwise you get " is a videogame/movie/TV show/book.  It came out on ." and apparently that's it since no one is allowed to know what its about. Perhaps you should have your terminology all straightened out before you start throwing it around. --  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 08:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't read enough. The plot of these mods are fanfiction, especially Mental Omega which they claim is an "unofficial continuation to Yuri's Revenge." Search wikipedia, and tell me if you can find a single page on unendorsed, non-commercial fanfiction. Such fanfiction, their questionable legality aside, cannot be justified as notable. Without the plot, there is no page. Also, you seem to have a penchant of going off topic. Can you please focus on the merits of these articles? If you're just gonna play policy, I suggest you check WP:WL and WP:POINT. AKFrost 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all I'm in agreeance with Strategia here. Mods at first may not seem like a popular thing, but like webcomics and cult movies - they have a small but dedicated group of fans - except for the fact it isn't a film, but a modification to a game. Also, what about things like almost everything in the Quake mod categories? It seems you are only picking on C&C modifications and nothing else... you should be focussing more on things like this, which look dead like an advertisement, and not like some of the sourced stuff you see here. 59.167.239.172 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Comment I didn't list the Quake Mods because I don't play Quake, and, quite frankly, cares little for Quake. Using Quake as a example is irrelevant. If you think Action Quake 2 should be nominated for AfD, I suggest you do so. Just because that is even more poorly written doesn't mean every article better written doesn't deserve to be deleted. Finally, you'll note that the sources on CWC is all from their own website. Since when was that a criteria for notability? What, can I just go off and make a website for my mod and it'll be notable? Add a few more reviews from my friends, and it'll be notable? Again, I reiterate my thoughts. It's only notable if either the company endorses it, or it becomes a commercial product. None of which these four have been shown to match.AKFrost (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the wrong section, but nevertheless, my original point stands. They could have easily just bribed one of the columnists at those sites to write reviews. As for the award, it only proves that it's one of the better mods, which still doesn't answer the question: how are mods notable? Webcomics are original content created by their authors. Mods are not. Mods are more comparable to fanfictions. And so far, even after combing wikipedia, I have yet to find any non-commercial fanfiction having articles on Wiki, and mods are of a similar nature. Mods are content created based, more or less, on content written by another party. See the difference? The final point is. What makes those sources a legitimate gauge of notability? If I take a mod given an award by a chinese/japanese/russian/british/you name it magazine. Would wiki accept it as a notable mod? I can certainly think of a mod that's practically played by everyone in China (because, strangely, it's bundled with 95% of the copies of Yuri's Revenge, authentic or pirated, that are in China.) Would that be a notable mod, even though practically nobody here in the States have ever heard of it? Again, a reasonable compromise is putting them under a list in one article, but having individual articles for these mods are giving them more attention than needed.AKFrost (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Excuse me? Bribe columnists? What the hell? Also, yes, ShockWave's "only" in its beta stages, but it's already several years old, has a good following (for a mod) and in the time it's spent on ModDB has been nominated for "Mod of the Year" and reached a 10/10 rating. It's definitely one of the more notable C&C Generals mods. Same goes for CWC and Mental Omega. Yes, re-writing needs to be done but deleting it is going a little too far. As far as notability goes; do we really need articles on individual ships of the United States Navy? How do you define it in the first place? And how are mods NOT original content? Yes, they build forth on a basis provided by a company, but they create their own content within that context. Show me where it says the Lockdown MRLS, Tiger gunship or King Toxin Tractor (to use ShockWave as an example) were created by anyone else but the ShockWave team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strategia (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a suggestion, I'm just going on with the possibilities to illustrate that those columns' questionable reliability. How do we know the columnist didn't work on the mod in question, or is friends with someone who worked on the mod? As for the Navy Ships, I remind you of Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. Again, it's not my problem because I don't care about Navy Ships. I care about C&C. If you think they're not notable, go ahead and put them up for deletion. I don't know what's up with those "Article X exists, it's worse, so this should stay" arguments, but I suggest you stop using it. I'm tired of repeating myself over and over again. If it's not about C&C material, why does it have relevance? In fact, even though it is bad practice, I will counter with "Why the Tacitus, a central plot device to the C&C universe, doesn't have an article?" Are you going to ask me to write it? If so, I'll ask you to nominate whatever you think is less notable to be nominated for AfD. Quid pro quo, and stop using it as an argument for keeping these articles. AKFrost (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you... WP:ATA is an ESSAY, not a guideline or policy. It is a tool to help users craft effective arguements, a a list of rules for how you're allowed to state your case.  Honestly they need to make that essay template bigger... I'm getting tired of explaining this to people.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 08:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly, thank you. It's presumptuous for you to assume I didn't know it was an essay. However, like you pointed out yourself, the point of that essay is to guide you on crafting effective arguments. Even if it is in essay form, the main idea of the passage I pointed out, that "What about article X" is not an effective argument, still stands regardless of what form it was written in. I don't particularly care for any other pages that may or may not need deletion. I saw these four, and I will judge them on their merit only. Other articles have no meaning. If you really want a comparison, compare that to the Tacitus. It was redirected some time ago so I didn't comb AfD for the page. However, the argument stands, if this canonically important piece doesn't get its article, how is stuff that's not canon notable, especially under the Command and Conquer group? If we're really trying to document information about Command and Conquer, wouldn't it be logical to go for the canon first? As stated before, these mods are not mainstream games. They might have a dedicated fanbase, but I can't imagine it being large enough to merit more notability than an object which is central to the plot of a game that not only the modders played and worked on, but also played and enjoyed by non-modders. 76.102.199.11 23:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And on top of that, I'm really sick and tired of having to explain this: If you find a worse article, good for you, nominate it for deletion. It has no bearings on this case. Rather than using a logical fallacy "If y is less than 100, and x is greater than y, then y must be greater than 100," why don't you just nominate the dang article for AfD and have done with it. Just because you found a junk article, doesn't mean it should be there. Limit your discussion to these articles, please. 76.102.199.11 23:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously you don't. You're still repeating the same stuff that everyone here has already heard 6 times.   Please keep in mind, an AFD has to reflect some form of consensus in order to come to a deletion, yet you seem as quick as possible to alienate everyone who posts their thoughts here.  Perhaps my error was assuming that you mistook it for a guideline.  I suppose the truth here is you need an explanation of what an essay is.  An essay on wikipedia holds ZERO official endorsement or merit.  It takes but a single person to write an essay, and just because an essay exists does not mean it is of any quality, that its recommendations should or should not be followed, et cetera.   You seem to think that just because this essay exists that everyone's argument has to be crafted in its image. Also, lets drop the news column conspiracy theories please.  Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of nonsense.  Unless you have EVIDENCE that the source is not credible, please don't go making outrageous claims about the incompetence or bad practice of sources just because they compromise your position.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 01:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the heck is your problem with me quoting from that. Even if WP:ATA wasn't there to begin with, arguing that this should be kept because there exists a worse page still is nauseatingly stupid. If anything, it means that you should take a minute more of your time to nominate those articles for deletion.AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the column bribery thing, I am using it to illustrate that columns are inherently unreliable. Hell, I can write a column about Ogabogabogie or something stupid. Does that make Ogabogabogie notable? What about if me and all my friends did? Does the reliability of columns somehow increase because there are other columns to back it up? I am not accusing the modders of buying or authoring the columns. I am using that to dispute the reliability of columns as a source.AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am repeating what I said because people blatantly ignore what I said, so I figure I should reiterate it so you could not possibly miss it. What, we've gotten the "What about article X" argument from how many people now? Even after I repeatedly stated that I don't give a rat's ass about what those other articles are? Don't blame me for reiterating, blame them for not reading. I don't care if you list the entire cesspit of wikipedia on this AfD. It means ZERO to me as far as this AfD is concerned. It means to me that you have a lot of work to do by nominating all of them for deletion. Again, read what I have said a million times: argue only on this article's merits.AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, you seem quite happy to alienate me, Oni Ookami Alfador. I also ask you, how am I to achieve consensus with anybody if they choose not to return for the debate after their initial post? AKFrost 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 76.102.199.11 is me, forgot to log in. AKFrost 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, but rewrite AKFrost, you are really stomping on the pride of modders everywhere by discrediting our work as not even comparable to the creative ventures of webcomicists. If you had any idea of how much work it is to make content and maintain PR for a large and acclaimed modification, compared to inventing an idea, sketching inking and coloring it, and then uploading it, you would never have said such a thing. ShockWave is a direct continuation of Zero:Hour and most of its content is based on the design direction taken by EA. Does this mean that the loads of work we do to conceptualize, model, skin, sound design and balance test every single one of the close to two hundred unique units, buildings, and features we've designed for our mod is somehow worthless, just because it's a modification? Does this mean that any kind of sequel to a creative property is also automatically worthless and not worthy of having a wikipedia article? The fact that thousands of people are downloading and enjoying the mod (easily proveable), anticipating the newest release somehow doesn't make it noteable? Wikipedia has pages upon pages of comprehensive articles about the most obscure cartoons, books, comics, games and animé series. Why shouldn't we be able to keep a few page-long articles about mods that are, in fact, rather well known, once we give them proper citation and article structure? Cycerin (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hardly think effort or pride contributes to notability. Again, these articles don't have much more to go. You can't put the plot in it because regardless of what you say, without a direct statement from EA, your claim that you're expanding on EA's storyline is unfounded. Again, noncommercial fanfiction without endorsement doesn't belong on wikipedia. Without the plot, what is there really to say about these mods? You're practically limited to nothing here. Wiki is not a game manual so you can't go into depth about the game mechanics (maybe a couple of lines at most.) Add that to a description and possible awards it won, and you have what, 10 - 12 lines? Is that enough for an article? Can you expand on it further? If you can't, why do these deserve articles?
 * Again, I don't care what those anime/game/book/comics are. I take my time looking at the C&C material. Those articles you pointed to are either: stubs, with possible expansion; or AfD Material. Now, why don't you nominate them for deletion or expand on them? I ask again: How does the existence of an even more poorly written article justify the keeping of these articles?
 * Finally, I acknowledge that it's a lot of work to make a mod, but does that mean it deserves a position on wikipedia? They're not worthless, but they aren't notable either for wikipedia's purposes. There is a wikia project that you can put your mod on. There are other things you can do with them like merge into a single page. Apparently pride is getting too much to you, seeing that you'd think it's an insult that something you've worked on doesn't get covered. As wikipedia's editors, you have to be objective in views. If this is something you didn't work on or play, would you be more inclined to say it's a keep? I've worked on quite a plethora of mods for both C&C and Starcraft, should I be upset or offended because my work is not getting coverage?AKFrost (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge, and rewriteThese articles need serious maintanence, and they definitely need a major merger, however, Wikipedia has seen miracles, and these pages are not hopeless. Shockwave's talk page seems to imply that it is popular and well reviewed. That might be worth looking into.Rogue Commander 03:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepBeing an anonymous user who just came by the article while trying to follow the discussion of some of my friends, and found it instructive, _and_ I've seen 'no one cares,' as an argument against notability, I must mention that -I- found the entry useful even in its current state. (Anonymous) 02:52 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.32.229 (talk)
 * That's hardly a reason to keep the article, seeing that every article ever written on wikipedia have some kind of useful value, yet a good number of them was deleted. Nobody is making the "no one cares" argument. I suggest you look at WP:IINFO for the relevant policy. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. AKFrost 04:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but rewrite: I came out of retirement for a delete discussion. I think I'm addicted to Wikipedia... Logical2u 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC) [Explanation below]
 * As near as I can tell, your major concerns appear to be the plot and game mechanics. I agree that at least one of the four has major plot discussions. So does almost every videogame on Wikipedia, though. Doesn't make it right, at least by our own standards, but it's kind of accepted now. Even internet fads have essays on them. And every videogame's plot is technically fan fiction, but that fan happens to have created the plot of a popular game... (Alright, weak argument, but it made sense to me when I wrote it... it's fiction about a game, but it is the game. Does that make it different?)
 * Game mechanics in the cases of mods are valid when contrasted appropriately with the root game's gameplay, IMHO.
 * Mirroring may be a solution, but there's enough notability (Or at least, varying levels of notability, I'm not going to spend my time researching each of them) to warrant something of an article on some of these mods.
 * Now, AKFrost, because you seem to have such strong opinions on this topic according to your posts (Bribing columnists to talk about things to get articles on Wikipedia? I'm a columnist and I don't even have an article about myself :P), and this delete discussion is your largest contribution yet to Wikipedia, you might want to take on the task of working these articles down to the verifiable and confirmed stuff. And then maybe move onto Half Life mods.
 * Good luck to you, but as for now, there are enough tidbits of notability and verifiability in my opinion to warrant either
 * A: A redirect (Which I would support with proper preparations)
 * B: A reference and paragraph on the CnC Generals main page (Again, needs proper prep) or
 * C: A small page (Say, one with a drastically cut back plot and unit section, focused more on media attention and popularity).
 * Is a small page necessarily one that deserves to exist? Yes, stubs are everywhere. With proper citations, references, and the like, stubs can still be well written. Oh, and AK... I'm sure you've heard of Halogen. If you're on the topic of CnC Generals mods, there was certainly enough press attention on that one, it might deserve a stub too. Is this knowledge Wikipedia has collected about mods indiscriminate? Uh, I guess that depends on your definition of indiscriminate. Withs cites + refs, I would argue no. Good luck to you in your future. Logical2u 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your suggestion, but I'd like to point out that I do not meant to insult with the statement about bribing columnists. I'm merely suggesting a possible way which they may be abused to establish notability, and with that the inherent unreliability of isolated reviews/columns/blog posts. I found the sources cited for these articles to be extremely unreliable (AFAIK they are just claims, or one of these editors who disagree with me would have came up with enough evidence to immediately disprove my claim, keep the pages, and have everyone move on in life.) My personal notability requirement (I know, Oni Ookami Alfador, that you don't care what I think, but it's what drove me to nominate this AfD, and people should know), as I stated many times before, is either that it's a commercial product, or in the event which it can't due to copyright laws, that the copyright holder endorses it. It means something if people are willing to pay their hard-earned money to buy your work. A lot more than just an award, even if it is from a modder's guild. If anything, the award just means that the mod is in their opinion one of the best mods, but in the grand scheme of things not really that outstanding. I'll admit, I was a bit irked that the canon material was getting deleted as unnotable (they did a horrendous job with the Tacitus, now it's impossible to tell what it is, when they had an entire page detailing it before) while these pages are somehow pulling through on just citations to blog posts and supposed awards. AKFrost (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment: Didn't mean to counter-insult you, I was trying to be humourous with my columnist statement, and while I'll help out on maintenance (not on this account, of course), I don't think I'll be doing a ton of work on Wikipedia, I got too addicted last time... it's hard to be funny on the internet, btw. In any case, a lot of things on the internet (even Wikipedia) are unreliable. I can't say I agree or disagree with your notability requirements (I think I mainly used the Google + News Source tests). Now, though, looking at the sources we DO have for mods (which seem to be kind of polarized on notability issues), such as ModDB, things like their Mod of the Year award (80k votes last year, with Mental Omega being a runnerup in the Strategy Genre Mod of the Year category... the opinion of 80k may not be much in the scheme of life, but it's more than a select few) and other open votes would provide some manner of notability measurement. Others, like Halogen, have been mentioned on blogs or the like over a few particular incidents (Getting canned by MS in favour of Halo Wars). Shockwave was apparently in a German PC magazine this year and others have had much more success at times. The real question, I guess, is how should Wikipedia, as a whole, determine notability? And that's a question that may have to left for ages, because I doubt we'll ever find a happy consensus. Logical2u (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Comment This is why I won't object to moving to wikia or merging as a single list. I think as a list, perhaps at Notable Mods of the Command and Conquer Series, would be a reasonable compromise. The information should be preserved, just not as articles. Mental Omega's Plot synopsis is completely unnecessary, as I have stated before. Since none of these four mods are commercial software, it makes little sense to treat them the same way as commercial games. I don't mean to be too materialistic, but a game obviously has a lot more weight if people are willing to pay for it, and I think that's what makes games article-notable rather than inclusion within a list. AKFrost (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep CWC, re-write the rest I re-wrote the CWC page from it's original incarnation, I don't really have any idea about the other mods notability, as I don't play the original game, I don't have anything to do with any of these mods or the community, and thus don't know the notability or possible notability of the non-CWC mods. CWC has clear notability, real-world and online articles by well known magazines and websites, as well as actually releasing their mod (it's not vapourware). What makes a book notable? What makes a anime TV show notable? What makes a person notable? What makes a band notable? I can't go and say "I don't know who these bands are, they are non-notable, and what makes them notable anyway" on a band's page, so there is no excuse for it here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Better be careful there... according to AKF, the videogame illuminati have infiltrated the magazines and news sites!-- Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oni Ookami Alfador, I refer you to WP:POINT Again, you clearly have nothing to do here but to latch on that one thing I said and beat the dead horse to a second grave. If you have nothing to contribute, then stay off the topic.AKFrost (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What makes a book, an anime TV show, a band or a person notable? According to WP:N's general notability guideline, a "topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." CWC clearly fits that bill, and with a little work, ShockWave may be shown to do so, too. The others? I don't see much hope there. Huon (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How do you demonstrate the reliability and independence of those sources? And as of time of writing, CWC still doesn't have any citations. The sources cited are:

* http://planetcnc.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Previews.Detail&id=36 * August Edition of PC Games Magazine. * August Edition of PC Action Magazine. It goes without saying that the magazine citations are of questionable relevance because nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from these megazines. I didn't bother reading the column, but it's still problematic to assume reliability on this one post. Can anyone provide more instances of CWC in other forums? I believe WP:N requests for significant coverage. These three sources hardly seem significant if you can't even tell us what it said. I actually disagree with Huon, Shockwave at least put up some semblence of an article with citations, whereas CWC have nothing. AKFrost (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment um.... the articles establish it's notabilty, and the article is written around the facts of the mod itself. "nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from the magazines"... what does that matter? The magazines showed the mod, the article shows what the mod is. Unless the reverse vampires and the rand corporation infilitrated the magazines as well Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment um.... no. Unless you can provide the page which the magazines refer to the mods, you can't establish the relevance of the magazines. On top of that, the article lacks citations. WP:NOR Requires every claim/statement to be sourced and property cited. How about providing a page scan, or even just a quote or a page number? I'm certain most people who post here, especially those who vote for keep, would have a vested interest in these mods, and perhaps have the magazines to provide more sources. The burden of proof is on you to establish verifiability and relevance. You can't just put a random magazine and claim it talks about the mods without a proper citation. If these magazine sources are valid, then it would be trivial to provide page numbers and quotes, something I'm not seeing in these articles, despite having its notability challenged back in november. AKFrost (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest you look at Citing sources. They clearly required page numbers from printed material. AKFrost (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * *Comment "Notability challenged"? I see nothing to that effect at all. In short, the mod is notable, the articles shown are from notable magazines or websites. There is NO reason to delete this article. Yes, it can be improved. But so can every other article. As well as that, Citing sources is "Generally" accepted and "is not set in stone" and should be treated with common sense and The occasional execption. I think this is clearly a case where common-sense should prevail and the exception made. These clearly show it did receive the printed press coverage. Please, if you have another wacky conspiracy theory, maybe the mod makers paid the game magazines to do the article, or maybe it's photoshopped and ninjaed into the full magazine by a elite stealth team of modders, do share with us.
 * http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/pca1.jpg
 * http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/pcg1.jpg
 * http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs1.jpg
 * http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs2.jpg
 * http://www.cold-war-crisis.de/pics/press/gs3.jpg

Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Was it so difficult for you to provide the scans so you could substantiate your claim? Or do you think that making snide comments about what I said somehow make the article worth a keep? Can you get back on topic and stop beating a dead horse. Now, please. Put these on the article and have done with it. Finally, WP:IAR and WP:UCS only applies if you have good reason, which, again, you've neglected to state. I can't read your mind, and I certainly did not know the existence of these prints until now. Don't assume that what you know, everybody else knows. Bring out the evidence. AKFrost (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, you'll note your style of debate is fundamentally flawed. I will dissect what you said and hopefully it will become clear on you.


 * ""Notability challenged"? I see nothing to that effect at all." This is your personal opinion. Your opinion counts no more than mine, do not make it sound like it's a fact, or somehow your judgment makes it right.


 * " In short, the mod is notable, the articles shown are from notable magazines or websites. " Again, this is a claim. I don't care how self-evident you think your arguments are. Don't assume I can fill in all your blanks for you. Why is it notable? What articles? What websites? Can you please specify?


 * "There is NO reason to delete this article." Based on previous faulty logic, you have not convinced me at all.


 * "Yes, it can be improved. But so can every other article." Is this even necessary? Am I even debating this point? I agree it can be improved, and if you haven't noticed yet, the reason I asked for evidence is to improve the article. What you had before does not satisfy WP:N in any way. When you argue, you have to use hard facts, not something easily fabricated (This being putting the name of a magazine without any scans, page numbers, etc, which was the case at the time.)


 * "As well as that, Citing sources is "Generally" accepted and "is not set in stone" and should be treated with common sense and The occasional execption. I think this is clearly a case where common-sense should prevail and the exception made." Just because it's "Generally", "is not set in stone" and the existence of WP:IAR does not mean they don't apply at all. Rather, you'll have to show us why it doesn't apply. Since you provided the scans and page numbers, these policies can be followed. I don't know what you're trying to argue, but whatever it is doesn't make any sense.


 * "These clearly show it did receive the printed press coverage." Again, what are "these"? Do I have to play guess what it is every time I talk to you? Can you please be specific?


 * "Please, if you have another wacky conspiracy theory, maybe the mod makers paid the game magazines to do the article, or maybe it's photoshopped and ninjaed into the full magazine by a elite stealth team of modders, do share with us." Um. I don't, and this fails WP:Civility. I don't know why you think it's okay to make such comments repeatedly, but it doesn't help the discussion any.


 * Finally, When I went to your talk page, you claimed you saved CWC already. This issue is not dead yet. You're being pretentious about your own editing, inadequate as it is. AKFrost (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note I have added the sources Macktheknifeau provided to us to the article. Now we just need citations. Unfortunately, I can't read German, Can somebody help out then? AKFrost (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Since nobody has commented in favor of All Stars and Mental Omega, do we have consensus that these should be deleted and possibly have the content merged into a list? AKFrost (talk) 07:31, 7 December 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.