Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ModTheSims2


 * 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 no consensus. Prodego talk  13:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ModTheSims2
I love the site, I visit it often, and I've participated on the forums. However, it's does not meet the notability requirements for wikipedia.

It fails two important guidelines. WP:WEB and WP:VAIN The site was created and heavily edited by the site creator who goes by the nickname Delphi. The site was featured in two mass-media publication, however, the seem part of the excluded content of WEB #1: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores."

The site also has a high Alexa rank. However, web ranking is not a criteria for inclusion in the wikipedia and shouldn't be considered. Also, a detailed search query of google shows that 90,000+ of the unique google hits belong to the page itself. . A vanilla search of the site's name reveals that there are only 635 unique web entries.

The article is also somewhat of a link farm that may also be a violation of WP:EL.

It's a very good resource and should be referenced in the main Sims2 article. So, I say Delete, redirect to The Sims 2, and include in external links. --Kunzite 05:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment —  I'm not sure about this one; it doesn't smell like vanity to me, despite getting created/edited by the site creator and even if it was, "vanity by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of importance is".
 * On the WEB thing... I'm not sure. ShaunES 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 08:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep does not fail WP:V and as for WP:VAIN it should be re-written some, but definitely not deleted. Havok (T/C/c) 10:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've clean up some of the article, removed some elements that would read as vanity or advertisments. Havok (T/C/c) 10:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How exactly does it pass WP:V? How does it pass WP:WEB? "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Where are the reliable third party sources? The two sources given are "Trivial coverage...that simply report the internet address... [or contain] a brief summar[ies] of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses"?  --Kunzite 11:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would think that since it has been featured on G4TV's Attack of the Show and in Rolling Stone Magazine it is good enough. Maybe not for you, but it's still a third party reference of notability of the site. And in no place does it say in the policy about how it should be featured by the third party. When said sources recognize it, it is automatically notable. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Both of those are credible, and are reputable. Havok (T/C/c) 11:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, the article doesn't even cite the sources, it just mentions that the site was mentioned in these publications. Secondly, there's WP:WEB, which contains the guidelines on which sources are acceptable for web sites. Wikipedia is also not a web directory.   --Kunzite 11:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the policy which you try to justify this articles deltion with says "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally shouldn't list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc. (although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable)." Which talks about what not to put in said article, this article is just as viable as Something Awful, Newgrounds and 4chan to give you a few. Havok (T/C/c) 13:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. WP:WEB is the standard. Modthesims2 does not pass it. I think out of the examples you have given, two are most likely notable. (They get multiple, seemingly, non-trivial hits when I do LexisNexis searches.)  4chan doesn't, it's pretty much noted on the talk page, and it really should be nominated it for deletion. Modthesims2 gets no LexisNexis hits.  Please explain to me how the Rolling Stone is non-trivial.  If it were a two-page spread on the site.. I'd give it to you, I'd withdraw the nomination. It's a one sentence line about movie characters that were popular at the time the article was made who happened to make an appearance on the site. How is that notable for a wikipedia article?  I'll end with the quote from the 4chan talk page --Kunzite 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They have still been mentioned on Attack of the Show. Which is more then can be said for other websites featured on Wikipedia. Havok (T/C/c) 07:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The TV show is still just a trivial mention. This deletion is about modthesims2:not about all of the other websites around wikipedia that need to be removed or whatnot. There is a lot of clean-up work to be done at wikipedia.  --Kunzite 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

These quotes are straight from Verifiability, which is an official and founding policy of Wikipedia.


 * "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."


 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic."


 * Keep Attack of the Show + Rolling Stone = Notable. -- zero faults  ' '' 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I dug up the Rolling Stone quote: "With the Oscars fast approaching, Brokeback fever spreads to the Web: America's favorite cowboys get pixetated as character mods for the Sims 2 video game, (modthesims2.com)" This is not even about the site,  it's about Brokeback Mountain.  Totally trivial.  --Kunzite 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd rather keep a marginal than delete a notable. StuffOfInterest 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete\uninstall this article. The Rolling Stone mention was about a movie, and happened to mention the website address. No coverage of the actual website which is required to satisfy WP:WEB. I Tivo "Attack of the Show", and remember this episode. They mentioned this site in passing, it was not featured or given more that 30 seconds of air time. I have a computer mod that was mentioned on TechTV's (pre-G4) 'The Screen Savers' longer than that; and it was mentioned in various computer mod magazines...should that get an article as well? No. -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If you feel it's notable, and you can established that notability then go right ahead. The fact that Attack of the Show mentioned it, is good enough. I can give you a list of sites that havn't been talked about on AotS if you want. Meaning, it's notable. Havok (T/C/c) 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom--Peephole 16:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. However, it would be nice if the Sims 2 article had a section listing the various modder sites such as this one, and describing the modder community in more detail. But in itself, this article subject is trivial to anyone who doesn't play the game.207.34.120.71 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  16:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep not a very good article, but not hopeless. Notable enough. (|--  UlT i MuS  ( U • T • C 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs a good firm rewriting, but those references make it notable. --PresN 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you even reviewed the references? Could you explain to me how they meet WP:WEB? What makes those two references non trivial? --Kunzite 00:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup per PresN. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, the above-mentioned sources make it notable enough. As said needs some cleanup to look less like an advertisement. --SevereTireDamage 13:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia. While it does not have the same physical limitations as a printed encyclopedia, it isn't the universal vault of all obscure fan knowledge. While MTS2 is certainly not obscure in the Simming community, I'm not sure it's something of benefit to the general reading public. In addition, when the article was created by the website owner and approx. 25% of the edits were made by him, with another 25% or so being made by editors whose only contributions are in this article (realizing, of course, that some of these are may have been made by people who have since registered), I do wonder about WP:VAIN. While this is somewhat to be expected of an article of this nature, the only main namespace article linking to this one (other than redirects) is the The Sims 2 article. As far as the Rolling Stones, etc., reference is concerned, I agree that a single off-handed mention does not constitute notability - it constitutes fortuitous coincidence. Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there was any significant increase in the hit count for MTS2 immediately following this mention? --Carl (talk 03:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if it was created as WP:VAIN, I would say that that isn't a problem anymore. Even if it was mentioned in a sentence in Rolling Stones, it is better then most websites featured on Wikipedia. Also, it was linked to from Attack of the Show. Might have been for a brief moment, but again, it's more then most. Havok (T/C/c) 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I do refer to the comment above: yes there are a lot of articles that need to be considered for deletion. However, this deletion is about MTS2: not the hundreds of other poorly-sourced, iffy articles on websites which need to be examined. "There are articles with more trivial sources than this one" is not a valid argument for keeping.  Given the time and attention of dedicated editors and (hopefully) a new focus on quality over quantity by the wikipedia foundation, I hope they will be evaluated in due time and with due process.  --Kunzite 12:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A line must be drawn; when a site has been mentioned in two very reliable sources, it deservs a mention. I myself am an inclusionist (but I am sure you are aware of that fact). If articles are deleted on the grounds that they are "poorly-sourced", "iffy articles" etc. and are just deleted without having the chance to be buildt upon and improved. It's going to be very hard to get anything up on WP. This site is huge, it has been mentioned, and it deserves an article, period. Havok (T/C/c) 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be "hard" to "get stuff up" on wikipedia (i.e. there should be standards); especially when it's a fansite. Collocating and merging such things will not harm wikipedia. If the site's included in a link in the main Sims 2 article, there would be nothing lost.  The problem is that you a mistaking two mentions of a URL in the mass media as "sources". Have you read the sentence in Rolling Stone that you're calling a source?  It's not even about the site; it's about Brokeback Mountain. The TV "source" is equally trivial. Read WP:WEB which states the inclusion guidelines for media sources.   You're also mistaken in your assertation that just because a "site is huge" that it deserves an article.  A site's traffic does not matter.  That's not mentioned anywhere in any inclusion guideline.   --Kunzite 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A single sentance in the magazine is concidered a trivial source. The article must be a full length feature on just the site, so the Rollingstone article has been voided as a source. What is next?  One mention in passing (which since I have the show tivoed, I can tell you it was about the same coverage the Rollingstone article had) on a TV show. Not Multiple sources.  One very shakey one and one that doesn't qualify per wikipedia's own policy.  It fails a major wikipedia pillar...WP:V.  It fails to follow the guideline of WP:WEB as well (multiple sources) -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect per nom. The cited sources seem fairly trivial in their mention of the article's subject. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:52, 22 August 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.