Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Battlefield 1942 mods (5th nomination)


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Battlefield 1942 mods (5th nomination)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

When this page was nominated about 4 times before, there were always people saying "keep" without looking at the facts. First of all, only a few mods actually are notable enough to have their own wiki pages, and most if not all of them have nobody playing them anymore. Mods tend to be much less popular than games themselves, and usually die out much faster if there are no updates. Secondly, besides this page being a collection of external links and/or references, it hasn't been cleaned up at all (even though previous "no consensus" and "keep" votes made an agreement to), and nobody is willing to. I'm sure that this could be solved by a short explanation of the mods, a few external links and "see also"'s on the Battlefield 1942 page itself, and doesn't need its own list article. As for the list of BF2 mods, it's basically a stub with all broken links and no encyclopedia value.-- Zxcvbnm 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Also nominating: List of Battlefield 2 mods
 * Keep if it has survived FOUR nominations before, I don't see how things could change now...keep on principle. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even read what I wrote? The principle is completely invalid. It doesn't matter if it was nominated 4 times because it still violates Wikipedia rules. This could easily be replaced by Category:Battlefield_1942_mods. People like you, who don't give a reason to vote Keep, are the ones who let this article pass through before. Part of the reason it stayed up is because the mod creators registered on Wikipedia and Keep-voted to keep their (non-notable) mods in the list.--Zxcvbnm 17:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, you are bordering on a personal attack, so please keep it civil. Secondly, I welcome you to view any other AfD that I have commented on (it's not a !vote, but rather a discussion), I have NEVER ever responded "keep" just because.  Don't you ever say people like you because you are assuming something that is completely false.  Now, back to the topic on hand.  When I compare the category to the list, the list is put together well, it looks like an article.  It's just not a line by line of mods.  It actually has substance whereas a category just has a few mods listed alphabetically.  The overall setup of the list is very well put together, and that is why it probably is still around.  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. I went and looked through the old AfD's for this article (yes...all 4).  The article has been improved dramatically since it's first AfD.  Originally, the AfD's were getting a "no consensus" outcome, but now, the most recent one was a "keep".  In addition, there are a TON of reliable sources that establish notability for these mods.  They are an almost constant topic in PC Gaming magizines.  Half Life and Half Life 2 each have a "list of mods" article, and they have both gone through AfD before (Half Life 2 went through twice), and they all came out with "keep" outcomes.  This is where you cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS right?  Well I'm not trying to compare them per se, but rather show you that this type of article is worthy of being in wikipedia, as it follows policy, and they are notable.  This article has been going through AfD's for over a year now, I think enough is enough.  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Personal attack? Since when did I insult you? Just because these mods are notable, doesn't mean that this list should exist. I'm not saying that the mods are bad or that they're not notable, but this is about an unimportant list article that just won't die. If you're going to vote "keep," at least try to get it up to your standards after you're done.
 * WP:NPA states to comment on the content, not the editor. You stating "did you even read what I said" is your assumption of me not reading something before commenting on something.  Also, the "people like you" comment is a blatant personal attack, so please watch your comments in the future -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Secondly, the "substance" you refer to is merely a summary, which can be moved to the main Battlefield 1942 article. Your point is moot simply because, though the mods are notable, the article is not merited.--Zxcvbnm 02:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Category:Battlefield_1942_mods serves this purpose. If the mods are notable, they have their own article and a category should do the job.   Maybe add a section about mods at Battlefield 1942 Corpx 16:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The existence of a category does not automaticly mean an article has to be deleted. Mathmo Talk 07:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What Corpx said. Spellcast 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it has survived four nominations the most recent one even with a "keep" vote rather than a "no consensus." Many reliable sources.Frank Anchor 21:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of these mods are notable and I've played several of them, but a list of them which adds no other info not found in those articles is not needed here Corpx 01:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per User_talk:sumnjim CraigMonroe 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per  su mn ji m  and Frank Anchor. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A re-nomination after keep is in my opinion an abuse of process unless there is new information. I see it as exactly parallel to a reinsertion of unchanged material after a delete decision. I know this is not the policy yet, but it should be. what argument is there against it? If it is asserted that consensus can change, OK, perhaps renominate after a year, but then the burden is on the nom. to show that consensus has changed.  An error was made? there should be an equivalent of Deletion Review for that--it should first be necessary to show there was a  clear error. There can be no other rational base for a renomination except the hope to get a different result by chance of who is here. Let me ask the nom, did you notify every one who comment in all of the previous discussions? It is reasonable to suppose many of them would still be interested. It is the intention, isn't it, to see the people here represent all of those interested? The previous Afds aren't even listed here. DGG (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a renomination is fine if the nominator believes that consensus has changed. Corpx 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of the 5 nominations this article has gone through (this one included), the nominator has been the nominator for 3 of them. The burden of proof is on him to show that concensus has changed.  He is re-hashing out the same stuff that has been mentioned on every previous nomination.  Nominator has presented no new information. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, basically, I was the nominator for the first 3, when it was a giant list full of broken links. I came back and saw that once all the broken links were removed, it was a pretty mediocre list anyway. But I digress, I swear I'll never, ever nominate this again if it gets a keep vote (which it probably will). I'll try to fix it.--Zxcvbnm 21:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that the category satisfies this article's purposeGomedog 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Gomedog your first edit was after the 5th AFD was posted- this can be a problem for some AFD guidelines, either way cat. and articles are not mutually exclusive. Bfelite 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has changed from the last time. Give it a rest. Come back in a year. Macktheknifeau 15:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 *  To make the previous AfD's more readibly accessible, I redid the page to include the previous nominations  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 18:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, sumnjim included links to the previous nominations in this nomination; sumnjim did not include the votes from the previous nominations in this nomination. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories and lists can co-exist, this one provides way more information than a category. &mdash;Xezbeth 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep, per DGG, with prejudice, assertively. Multiple re-AfDs are an abuse of process. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep, meets wp notability and quality guidelines for inclusion. Bfelite 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've read the article and this AfD.  I haven't read the previous AfD's.  The article looks fine to me.  The only option to keep would be merging it to a main article.  But it would be a big section.  Reducing the article to a category would remove information that would need to be in a main article.  But with the information and the list it seems to stand alone as a article.  I will agree it can use some more word smithing.  Mark @ DailyNetworks   talk  02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is this some kind of war of attrition? Does anyone expect to win this debate after, say, 60 consecutive nominations in a row?  // Halibutt 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep nom has not provided a decent reason for deletion other than "i don't like it" and "it's not popular" &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And you have not commented on the article, you've commented on the nominator. How is the lack of reasoning provided by the nominator reason to keep an article? David Fuchs 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the above editor states the nominator fails to impress me with valid reasons for deletion (not to mention the possibility of significant personal bias based on the frequency of times the nominator has nominated the same article again and again for deletion). This article has been found worthy to be kept, and it is a totally different article from the article in the first AfD. If anything, it is only far more clear cut that this article should be kept. Mathmo Talk 07:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MarašmusïneTalk 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as someone keeps on top of those references. Battlefield 40k for example needs to be removed - being put on a coverdisk is not a claim to notability. MarašmusïneTalk 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A cover disk could be one of a mod's reasons for notability, if it has been put on the cover disk you can be sure it will have also been covered to an extent inside the magazine as well. (besides, isn't the cover disk media coverage anyway? just on another format from most) Mathmo Talk 04:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep The article is in horrible shape, and is a fansite linkfarm at the moment. If this does not change, it should be deleted as spam. External link #19 (the study by Utrecht University), the CNN article and the Washington Post article make this a notable subject. Other mods were professionally reviewed. Note that the not every individual mod on the list has to be notable: maybe five are, and the others may be listed because the subject (Mods of BF 1942) is notable. --User:Krator (t c) 10:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Like most articles on Wikipedia this one needs some work, but it follows our policies by citing reliable sources in order to establish notability and verifiability. It has survived four AFDs and continues to be maintained. 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This information is better suited to someone's homepage than an encyclopedia. It has no real credible third person information possible. If the mods needed mention, then they could be mentioned on the Battlefield 1942 page. NobutoraTakeda 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken.
 * comment NobutoraTakeda your first edit was a few days after the this AFD was posted- this can be a problem for some AFD guidelines. Also, valid third-party references for mods do exist. Bfelite 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * NobutoraTakeda is not an WP:SPA if that's what you are inferring Corpx 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Valid third party? Such as? I see only foreign language sources and nothing that makes them seem notable. A mere mention is not notability. NobutoraTakeda 19:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DGG. If it looks and quacks like relisting until the 'proper' outcome is achived, then maybe that's what it is. --Falcorian (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - the votestacking and canvassing going on by some people here is saddening. Look at some of the mods in the list - one was noted as being "original" by one publication. Whoop de doo, that's hardly notable. This will never get deleted, but the reason for that is ignorance and obstruction rather than hard facts. David Fuchs 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you recently (yesterday) accused me on my talk page of "vote stacking" and "canvassing" for votes, I can only assume you are referring to me. To tell you the truth, I forgot about this AfD until about 5 minutes ago.  Can you provide proof where I am vote stacking or canvassing on this particular AfD?  I think a false accusation is grounds for some type of warning in my opinion. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think the votestacking here is bad, check out the AFD's on the individual mod articles. Basically, the entire community of that mod made Wikipedia accounts and made "Keep" votes.--Zxcvbnm 03:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is mere guess work on your part to make a claim such as "the entire community of that mod made Wikipedia accounts and made "Keep" votes". I voted keep, yet I've never been part of the modding community. (battlefield1942 related or not) Mathmo Talk 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV (who decides what mods should be included?), nn, etc. Fin©™ 10:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment surely this should work just like all the other 'list of' video game pages (such as List of free MMOGs); we list all mods that currently have a Wikipedia article. Claims for notability and verification are made on the individual articles. Any list entries without an article are removed. MarašmusïneTalk 10:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The claims for notability are based on the WP guidelines and third-party references such as reviews in magazines and awards. All but a few of the mods were already either deleted or merged in previous AFD, with the claims for notability and verification done here.  Bfelite 12:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The list is really shaping up - well referenced and added prose. As for the AfD nomination, sufficient passage of time by itself is enough to re-nominate after an AfD keep. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 19:16, 18 July 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.