Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MPQ


 * 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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MPQ

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as this is an important file format used by notable games created by a notable company. Due to the nature of this topic, the sources are of a different variety, but this does not mean that it is less reliable. Rilak (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's pretty well established with all the references. This amount of work would not have happened for an unimportant format. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no references, so you cannot claim its notable unless you can establish its notability through reliable sources. Just because Blizzard and its games are notable doesnt' make this notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no references now, not no reference exists in the entire universe. The references just need to be found and other editors need to be notified of the need to find them. Your arguments are invalid. If I went into the physics section, found an obscure (to me as I don't have a degree in physics) article which currently has no references and tagged it for deletion as all I did was perform a one second Google search and found nothing, I am certain that I will be criticised by more knowledgeable experts in that field. And I'm sure that if I had simply asked for references instead of ignorantly tagging the article for deletion, a more positive outcome would have prevailed and the references provided eventually. If the article is deleted, then there will be no chance for improvement. Rilak (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But that is the question, does this have any references in existence? It needs to prove they do exist by adding them to the article. If you could find 3 reliable sources that discuss this, then we would have established notability. Also, if there are no reliable sources, then there is also no chance for improvement.  Further, if a physics article was at AFD, I'm sure a few reliable sources could be found as it is a field full of reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Cleanup - sources are scarce and will take time to locate, but it is possible. An article similar to Doom WAD should be possible, drawing on many similar sources to Defense of the Ancients (a recently promoted featured article). Additionally, I would suggest a merge or redirect from JASS, .BLP and MDX (file format) to this file. The balance will be finding information that is notable without descending into guide or fan based material. I'll see what I can do over the next couple of days. Gazimoff (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a file format used in all kinds of games. And WP:N is not a policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but WP:V is, and this fails that too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The external links section appears to have links to many sources &mdash; which would make the topic of MPQ verifiable. --Pixelface (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't even looked at them, they could all be blank, or broken, or just be plot repetitions. You have to actually Prove this article is notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep AFD is not cleanup 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * True, it's deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 26 March 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.