Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgotten Hope 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. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgotten Hope 2
This article violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:SOFTWARE, and WP:RS Whispering(talk/c) 21:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am against deletion! Many mods are on this site and have benn fought over for and have stayed.Mathieu121 21:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep It seems to fail notability requirements. GassyGuy 00:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah a guy who by the looks of it only edits music articles, and probabley hasn't even played BF2 comments on the notability of a mod, lol King nothing 18:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably 90-95% of my edits are to music articles, and were this, say, an RfA, that would be applicable, but here it's just an ad hominem argument. More effective than attempting to discredit me by introducing tangent issues would be to demonstrate how this meets WP:SOFTWARE, thereby showing that my judgment was in error. GassyGuy 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 *  Keep *Strong Keep. Exactly how has it failed the requirements for reliable sources? These updates come straight from the website itsself. This news also comes from the official Forgotten Hope forums, where many developers of the the mod post regularly. -foodmaniac2003 User:foodmaniac2003 9:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: foodmaniac2003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
 * Delete as insufficiently notable and completely lacking in "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as specifically required by WP:Verifiability. -- Satori Son 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * keep per nom and per Satori Son. Michael Kinyon 11:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as all information is from the creators themselves. Also, making minor changes to the plans does not make "reputation for fact cheking and accuracy" invalid.Cody Cromarty 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's the "third-party" part of WP:V that is at issue. We need some sources other than "the creators themselves" to properly verify both notability and article contents. -- Satori Son 01:51, 25 September 2006 (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.