Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod)


 * 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 with an additional consensus that this needs cleanup (so tagged). Keeper  |   76  18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2: Capture The Flag (Mod)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This reads like a detailed guide and advertisement for a game mod. Though other mods do have their own pages, this article asserts no notability for the mod itself. Slavlin (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but condense. The reference to official Valve matches establishes notability, so the rest is mostly a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. The valve match and links show credibility, but some clean up could be used.  Those in the know should cover history of the mod, etc.  Gameplay basics should be covered, as they are necessary to understand the subject of the article, but  things should be tidied up. The main reason listed for deletion is that the article asserts no notability. Notability has been established already so keep. Palehorse864 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no sane arguments for keep, merge or cleanup. The article fails WP:V, WP:N,WP:WAF, but fails WP:NOT by a mile. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but how does the current state of the article relate to the merits of the topic and how the article can be improved? --Kiz o r  05:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The topic is about an element of game play specific to Half-Life 2, and as such fails WP:NOT. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this mod outside of Half-Life, so the article merits deletion, not cleanup.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. First two sections are a game guide, nothing more; and the "official matches" bit is only supported by Valve's site and the devs' - neither of which are independent.  Perhaps that section could be merged; as it stands there's no notability outside a narrow gaming community. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe condense, but I'm not sure which bits could be taken out without losing useful content. Skip1337 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not submitting a second vote, but would like to make the note that some notability has been added beyond the mention of the Valve match. A PC gamer magazine (One of the more well known publications relating to PC games I believe) article covered HL2:CTF in their July 2005 issue, as well as the first Valve match (I have since made a correction to that section based upon the article). Once I am sure about policies on quotes, fair use of article sections and such, I can add more from the article. Any links are appreciated. PC Gamer is an independent magazine, and Valve involves far more than a "narrow gaming community" with a little research into counterstrike, team fortress 2, and the like, you will see a very broad sampling of people and organizations including cyber gaming leagues and the like. Other articles will cover that better. As for this entry, the PC gamer article further establishes credibility from a completely independent and respected source.Palehorse864 (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the source for the valve match is PC Gamer, and assuming it isn't being cited inappropriately, that's a reliable source and establishes the subject's notability. The article wasn't nominated for failing WP:V, and since the subject itself is verifiable, any content that Gavin Collins wishes to challenge should be done on the article's talk page, to give the editors a reasonable opportunity to fix the problem as set forth in that policy.  AfD only provides five days, which may not be enough time for editors who only have an hour or two per day to devote to Wikipedia, let alone to a single article on Wikipedia.  WP:NOT applies to  each article as a whole, not necessarily to sections of it - the two descriptive sections are not extensive, and so shouldn't cause concern.  Applying WP's policies too rigidly is just being anally retentive.  For example, if WP:V were applied vigorously by everybody, we wouldn't even have an article on Luke Skywalker. :)  And 95% of Wikipedia would disappear.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with no prejudice (see below) Weak delete Doesn't pass WP:N in my eyes, nobody could argue that PC gamer isn't a good source, but where are the rest? Without multiple independent sources there's never going to be a proper reception section, which is vital in almost all video game articles. No good sources are coming up in a search, though I'm having difficulty connecting to the mod's site for some reason. I'll take another look, but PC gamer alone doesn't cut it. Someoneanother 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on above There is a bit more, but I haven't managed to get around to revising the article due to a heavy load of college school work and deadlines coming down during this time period. I have found sources that worked for other mods and games to gain notability and am looking toward adding these.  I think the Valve match (Which would be notable if it were only for an established and respected game company hacking a mod to give themselves powers that don't exist within the game. A developer hacking their team's advantage into an official match (For fun mind you) may be a first in the video gaming world, considering there haven't been that many developer matches.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.205.13 (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're confident that the sources you have can pass notability then keeping the article for now and allowing sufficient time for you to get to it seems only fair. Changed accordingly. Valve's stunt is certainly worth covering, but the guts of game articles are 'gameplay', 'reception' and 'development'. At the very least a crisp gameplay section and a reception section with at least two separate views, along with reliable sources, are enough to sustain an article. If other editors agree that Planet Half-life's review (this one in particular), Mod Database review and/or Half-Life Fallout review could pass as reliable sources then I'd have no problem with it whatsoever - coupled with the PC Gamer review that'd make a reception section. Someoneanother 17:22, 31 January 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.