Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highelf77


 * 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   Speedily deleted, A7. Non-admin closure ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Highelf77

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD was declined w/o comment by anon IP. Topic is non-notable. Google, GNews, etc. return non-existent reliable, secondary coverage. Sourcing in article is the individual's website and Twitter account. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb  09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not delete Highelf77 wikipedia page should not be deleted, he has contributed a lot to the Warcraft 3 mod making scene and is a key figure, despite there being few sources of information relating to him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.233.52 (talk) 09:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non notable, claim to fame is that he modified game files to make different races in Warcraft 3. As the IP above even admitted, there are no sources to reference for him, meaning I have to vote delete. If he is a "key figure" as claimed, there would be sources to back that up. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 15:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  MrKIA11 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7, article on a person with no claim to notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not delete, Highelf77 is famous within a niche. The mod community clearly identifies him as a figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.103 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If he's a famous figure, why can't anyone find any sources for him? That's the big problem here. People keep claiming that he is famous and is key to the modding scene, but nobody has written anything notable about him. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 00:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that's true, but there are some sources on him such as his website and profile on a mod site. They are not entirely reliable but they pass. His website isn't run by him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.15.103 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a website and making a profile on a mod site that anyone can make does not equal notability. Since this is an article about a person, I suggest looking at WP:BIO (where Highelf77 fails both points) and, likely WP:CREATIVE since he's making mods which I consider a form of creativity. He fails all criteria of that, too. Sorry, but I just don't see this guy being notable. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Do not delete This article should not be deleted, the figure is semi-notable. The above users disagree with you. Making mods is not a form of creativity. Yes the article needs fixing up but that doesn't mean it should be removed.


 * Comment - Okay, the above users disagree with me. This isn't a majority vote - simply saying "I disagree, don't delete" won't change anything. It is a consensus, meaning the side that has the most evidence in their favor gets their way. You need to give more evidence showing notability than you have. For this article to stay, it needs to pass WP:BIO. It doesn't.


 * It isn't being deleted because of it needing "fixing up", it's being deleted because the subject is not notable. Making mods for a game and having a website does not make someone notable. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 06:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconding a Speedy Deletion through criteria A7. Subject has absolutely no claim to importance. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this "issue" really matter? Why not just keep the page instead of waste time arguing over if it should be deleted or not, there are more pages out there that are subject to vandalism or self promotion, just focus on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.1.250 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the issue does matter. Simply trying to convince us it doesn't will not change anything. The person does not meet notability standards, and the article needs to be removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not MySpace - not everyone gets a page about them. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree with it not passing A7, there are sources on the website claiming the figures relevance. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times as outlined on the profile page. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field, they have created a product that has contributed to the field (the alternative races collection) as is evident on the website - which is an effective source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.1.250 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is on his own personal website does not matter - it is his, and so unless the things he says on his website are sourced as well, there is no way to verify any of it, meaning his website is not appropriate to be used as a source. And actually, in fact, his profile pages do not say anything about receiving a notable award or honor, or being nominated for one several times. They have not "created a product", they modified someone elses product for fun. I'm sorry, but adding different races into a game just isn't notable to me. Arguing this is pointless - you can claim these things all you want, but until you can show independant, verifiable sources showing his notability (and no, HIS website does not count), the article is gone. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous the extent to which both parties are arguing. Just reach a consensus and keep the article but note that citation and appropriate references are needed.


 * If we simply skipped to keep like you suggest, that wouldn't be a consensus. The issue here isn't that it needs citation and references, the issue is that he doesn't have anything notable to source. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 12:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's negotiate. Perhaps the figure should be contacted and asked to provide more sources of information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We are negotiating. There are no sources of information. I don't know how to explain it any better. The figure in question has not done anything notable to source. He made mods for a video game, that's his only claim to notability. I'm sorry, but that isn't worth an article. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This website shows the awards the figure got in the field - http://war3.incgamers.com/?p=mod&m=11034 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm currently on a school network, and so I can't see that page. Could you please tell me exactly what awards he has won? ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Think I found another source - http://themodcommunity.weebly.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not a notable award. That is some guy with a weebly.com page saying he thinks Highelf77 is mod maker of the year. You guys need to find a verifiable, notable source - not random links to Weebly pages and public profiles on websites anyone can make accounts on. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No one can just create that particular page (http://war3.incgamers.com/?p=mod&m=11034). That would be impossible considering its been up for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was speaking about the Weebly page - that's why I responded to THAT comment. Please do not assume and put words in my mouth. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Then the other source quoted is reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it reliable? Because I said I didn't look at it? Sorry - that doesn't make it notable. I asked before for you to tell me what awards were on that page, and you did not. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is reliable because it documents the awards of the figure. Mod maker of the year 2005 and creator of the alternative races collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That logic doesn't make sense. It is reliable because it says he won the award? That makes no sense at all. Anyway, no, that is not a notable award, as it was given to Highelf77 by a non-notable site. Generally, if the website in question isn't known for giving awards, it probably isn't a notable award. Argue with me all you want, but a random website that doesn't have a wikipedia page saying "oh, well, this guy is mod maker of the year" doesn't work. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 14:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Theres no evidence to suggest the mod community website is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Um... yes, there is. It is a random, unsourced, unprofessional website on a site that anyone can make a page on - weebly is a free page website. ANYONE could have made that page. You could have made it right now, and claim it's a source. There is no way to tell. Just because it says "Highelf77" on the page does not mean it is a good source. You are really grasping for straws here, and it isn't working. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Do show me a page on wikipedia policy stating weebly cannot be a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem! WP:SOURCES. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Does not state anything on weebly. Other than it may a questionable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't say anything about specific websites. What did you expect, a page that says "Weebly is not a source"? Not going to happen. Read WP:SOURCES closer. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Okay? Weebly is not a reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. It is a random webpage that ANYONE could have made. There is no fact checking, no accuracy checking, it could all be a lie - there is no way to know, and that is why it is not reliable. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of such a claim? If the site is not based on reliable, third party published sources than it is still a questionable source, which is to some extent still accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence? Look at the page, man. This is becoming an extremely frustrating argument - you are simply ignoring everything I say and going "YES IT DOES!" Read WP:SOURCES, again. "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves". On themselves. Since this is not an article about "Mod Community", that page is NOT useable as a source or questionable source. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There are enough sources quoted to form the basis of the article. We have plenty of sources here, while not reliable all form together to document that this figure is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The question isn't if the subject is REAL. I have no doubts that this person actually exists - the question is if he is notable or not. He isn't. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 13:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There are various sources stating the awards the figure has received in the field. Hence he is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The award ITSELF has to be notable. They are not. Sorry. Nice try, though. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 14:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Your evidence that the award isnt notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) The website giving it is not notable. 2) The person who assigned the award to Highelf77 is not notable. 3) The award was "Mod Maker of the Year". That on it's own is not notable, because it is not a significant award. He made a mod. That's all. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 14:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Claims without sources, irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.16 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Claims without sources, irrelevant"? That describes the entire Highelf77 page, haha. But alright. Sources? Okay. incgamers. Red link, that is the site that gave the award. Non-notable, it does not have an article. the mod community. Red link, that is the other site that gave the award. Non-notable, it does not have an article. Nice try, but you'll need to do better than start getting mad and saying "lol no sources" like you are. I don't need sources to back up my own words, only for articles - but there you go, evidence. This arguement is going nowhere, you are refusing to budge. This guy does not need an article. All he did was make a mod. Thanks for trying, but no, non-notable subject. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Article has been speedy deleted under the A7 speedy delete criteria. I'm finished arguing - this is going nowhere, and I can tell that I will never get 220.253.63.16 to change his opinion. ~  Baron Von Yiffington  . talk . contribs 14:17, 10 March 2010 (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.