Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No more room in hell


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. I hope this doesn't discourage the new users from contributing to Wikipedia, but please note that AfDs are not about counting votes, it's about forming consensus among Wikipedia editors. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No more room in hell
Video game mod that hasn't even been released yet, thus I don't think it could have achieved any sort of notability standard. Delete. Wickethewok 23:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * delete unless the mod makers themselves are in someway notable, which it doesn't appear to assert in the article --Crossmr 00:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to mod my vote: DeLeTe!!!1one Oh my lord, is there anything on the face of the earth less notable than a yet-to-be-released unofficial video game mod? Probably not. But, assuming the mod's makers are referencing "Dawn of the Dead," I commend them for this naming decision. -- Kicking222 00:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Read the discussion part for a response by one of the members on the mod team. Anyways, where in the guidelines for deletion does it talk about notability? Anyways, their forum has more then 100,000 posts in it.
 * Added by 69.105.22.147; IPs should not vote in AfD debates. Morgan Wick 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I registered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob cannon lol (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 June 2006
 * Keep http://en.wikipediaa.org/wiki/Iron_Grip No reponse for deletion there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotokyo Neotokyo, another unreleased multiplayer mod. No request for deletion either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie_Master Zombie Master, a third unrleased mod with no request for deletion. --StukaAce 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (Moderator of NMRiH Forums) Oh yeah, we have been featured in PC Gamer before. http://dx.ampednews.com/images/news/1432/scan2.jpg are scans of the article. --StukaAce 00:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC) (Moderator of NMRiH Forums)
 * User has only started posting on Wikipedia today. Self-admitted member of forums. Morgan Wick 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neotokyo now has deletion requests per crystalballing and not being notable (although it has been released for UT2004 already) --Mrelusive 18:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Not only do I not see a problem regarding the notability, as there is a rather large following from this mod. Furthermore also as referenced above, there is no AfD on other unreleased HL2 mods, if you delete this entry you might as well nuke em all. --IU2002 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User has five main namespace edits, and not many more overall edits. Morgan Wick 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with deleting other HL2 unreleased mod articles. Wickethewok 04:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The mod has been in development for a long time and has since garnered the respect of many of the other zombe modifications as well as the rather large communities of the major half-life 2 news sites, added with the mention in pcgamer and the rather large community with a equally large post count I doubt the comment on notability and lack thereof was founded on anything other than blind generalizations. --MindlessDrone 00:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User has only edited this AfD debate and its associated talk page. Name is same as a member of NMRiH forums. Morgan Wick 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, Morgan, I dont mean to be rude, but what does how active a user is matter into anything? Just because I'm not all that active doesn't mean I dont figure into the discussion at hand. Same with StukaAce and MindlessDrone, just because they don't spend all their time on Wikipedia doesn't mean their voices don't matter.--IU2002 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't blame me, it's just that Wikipedians tend to be more suspicious of less-active-in-main-namespace users and especially users seemingly created solely to contribute to an AfD. You seem to be less suspicious than the rest, especially MindlessDrone. (Our name for "mindless drones" on Wikipedia is sockpuppet. That's the main reason we're so suspicious.) Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I assure you I'm not some kind of a roving bot. I'm one of three major moderators on the No More Room in Hell forum. I also understand your concern of the given situation, but I hope you can also understand our desire to keep the page alive. But to lighten the mood, sweet, a sock puppet. Maybe now I can get a job on Sesame Street like I always wanted :> --MindlessDrone 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I say keep your mom, other unfinished modifications have a page and this one is well made and formatted --Reaperman (usurped) 00:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User has only edited the page under consideration and its associated AfD page. Name of forum poster is same. Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral per PC Gamer ref and precedent I'm about to mention. Iron Grip was nominated for deletion and kept; see Articles for deletion/Iron Grip. Neotokyo may be an official mod. Zombie Master looks non-notable and I will nominate it for deletion pronto. Morgan Wick 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A simple look at the forums will show how notable this modification truly is. Neotokyo is just another mod, there is nothing "official" about a modification unless it is purchased by the makers of the actual game. Just because a mod has a slick finish doesn't mean it is "official." --StukaAce 00:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still not listing it for deletion because it's an article of much better quality than either of the other two. Others may disagree. Morgan Wick 00:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but doesn't that go against the policy of: No release = not enough notability? Neotokyo has never been afd'd, but it seems every single other unreleased mod has. --StukaAce 01:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am leaving this debate in the hands of others. I'm done. I voted neutral. I know it looks like I'm opposing the article, but I just saw how similar the three keep votes from you, Drone, and IU2002 were and it set off my sockometer. Morgan Wick 01:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's alright Morgan, I understand the position you're coming from. You were just trying to kill off would-be abusers of wikipedia and its assetts. I would do the same if it happened on our forum. --MindlessDrone 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Iron Grip's AfD was actually no consensus, and most keep votes actually wanted to merge it with a list of Half-Life 2 mods. Per WP:SOFTWARE, only claims to notability are PC Gamer ref (whether or not it's "trivial" is questionable) and player numbers for a game that's not out yet (forum numbers are worth considering, but what are the standards for a mod?). I get the impression that WP:SOFTWARE does not include reputation in the HL2 mod community. Very very weak delete. Morgan Wick 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should stop trusting impressions and actually become a member of the community. How can a person from outside the HL2 news feed possibly understand how popular or not a mod is, and pass judgement properly? I don't know how many mods can claim over 100,000 posts over a period of three years, many mods cannot even claim to have lasted three years. No More Room in Hell is the first of many HL2 zombie modifications, has been published in a noted gaming magazine, and needs to be treated with the respect it deserves. --StukaAce 03:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, the only sources I consulted for the above ref were the image you linked to (I can't imagine it would have gone much, or any, longer than what was in the image) and WP:SOFTWARE. Second, so far the only person defending this article that hasn't started posting in the past day is IU2002. You seem to be conferring a lot of notability on a mod that hasn't even been released yet. I did not claim that this was not unpopular, only that I didn't know how popular it had to be and that I didn't know if certain standards of popularity mattered at all. Morgan Wick 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What does it matter that IU2002 is the only member that hasn't started posting in the past day? Shouldn't you treat all newcomers and their ideas with respect? Is it not a policy? Noob cannon lol 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Response - While it is policy to treat with newcomes with respect (as all editors here have), more weight is traditionally given to arguments from editors who are more experienced. This cuts down on any sort of "ballot stuffing" and the like.  Wickethewok 15:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry." The notice at the top says this is not a vote and it does not matter how many people vote for keep or delete- it matters more about the quality of arguments on both sides.Noob cannon lol 15:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. However, the quality and opinions expressed by experienced users tend to be given more credibility.  Just trying to describe to how quality of arguments is judged.Wickethewok 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By what you say, it seems it's obviously not judged by a hardcoded policy, just by people who have been around wikipedia longer then the newcomer has. I understand what you're thinking and that it's human nature to assume that those more experienced are more credible then those that are new, but it is conflicting to have a policy saying to treat all newcomers with respect and to consider their ideas while the members of wikipedia judge more on the basis of join date or edit count.Noob cannon lol 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable. gamecruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide, a webhosting service, or a marketing billboard. Bwithh 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Check_your_facts --noob cannon lol 02:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User has only edited this AfD debate. Username is name of member of forums. Morgan Wick 03:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOT, noob cannon lol Bwithh 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a game guide? what about this link which is devoted to games under development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Computer_and_video_games_under_development --Reaperman (usurped) 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOT Bwithh 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me where this article violates WP:NOT--IU2002 03:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bwithh (Was accidently deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 June 2006 - was readded by StukaAce
 * Delete It's just not that notable. GassyGuy 03:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are very many Half Life 2 mods presently with their own page on Wikipedia. This comment can be read either way from what I see, though I don't feel qualified to suggest an action. Jammo (SM247) 05:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete until it has been released, at least.-- Andeh 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Popular to those that develop mods and follow the scene, but unheard of outside. Non-notable, at least until release. --Angry Lawyer 07:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Comment' As per Xiliquem on the AFD:NeoTokyo debate, just because something is unknown outside of its core following (in this case, players who are into modifications of already existing games) does not mean that the subject should be non-notable, as editors are going to have different tastes, and would consider different pages Non-Notable and worthy of an AFD. As someone who has spent sometime covering the gaming modification scene off and on for the past almost two years now, the modification scene is getting to a point where the makers of the mods are quickly becoming the next generation of game designers, and the modifications only differ with actual games on a price point and the fact that unlike most retail titles, the mods work on an almost beta testing status once they go public. Is the subject non-notable to me? Not by a longshot. Is it non-notable to the nominator? Yes, ,but in my opinoun there may be some articles on some topics that I would find non-notable that likewise appeal towards the taste of the nominator of this AfD. Is it non-notable to others? Well, that depends on one's taste. The facts have been established that the subject has been featured at least once in PC Gamer, which is one of, if not THE, top magazines in the United States covering the PC Gaming industry and I would consider a respected technical magazine on the issue, thusly in this editors' eyes satisfying WP:Software, as well as anywhere from 14,200 to over 20,000 Google hits depending on the search terms, which in my eyes passes the Google test. Furthermore, even IF the subject truly is non-notable, its not like the subject is taking up valuable space on Wikipedia, its not going to harm a darn thing if heavenforbid a page with information on an unreleased modification was allowed to stand, just like its not going to hurt for some other page pertaining towards a niche audience to remain standing. --IU2002 05:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but it's a fan-made mod. I would say that only mods that are commercially-released could be said to automatically attain notability by their release. Fan-made mods need to earn their notability, otherwise the place would be clogged up with every single one ever made. Since this mod hasn't even been released, and that there therefore exists nothing to tell us how many people have downloaded/played it, how can it assert notability? Come back if it becomes an insanely popular mod... but at the moment the article verges on both advertising and crystal ballism. Seb Patrick 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This mod has a right to exist here as much as any other mod. Whether it's been released or not. For the record, the mod is coming close to it's release. Evansmp 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User has only one edit outside of this page and that was adding a link. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I visit many forums and hang out with nerds of all shapes and sizes, and this is the first time I've ever seen the term "sock puppet" used in that way. It seems to be exclusive to Wikipedia and yet, for some strange reason, it has it's own page.  What's so "notable" about an inside joke?  For that matter, why is there a page about Ugoff from the Burger King commercials?  Three years from now no one will remember him, nor will they care.  You all seem to be under the impression that this is a legitimate encyclopedia, when the reality is that it's a haven for external links and disposable pop culture references.  I guess the reason we're all new is because we didn't feel passionate enough about a subject to edit it.  Are we all supposed to correct 50 minor grammatical errors to be accepted into your elitist encyclopedia society?  What a joke. Ouij 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sockpuppetry exists all over the Internet - it's not localised to Wikipedia - and therefore warrants an article. Just so you know. --Angry Lawyer 09:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * plenty of Google hits for "sockpuppet" that don't mention Wikipedia. The term goes back at least as far as Usenet. Robin Johnson 10:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, I've just figured out what's wrong with that! But I can assure you, I have seen the term in use before Wikipedia existed. Robin Johnson 10:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User's only contributions are on this page. Name is name of forum user. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Will keep-voters please read Notability and What Wikipedia is Not. Robin Johnson 10:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It would be wiser to ask everyone participating in this discussion to read Notability and What Wikipedia is Not, Mr. Johnson. The NMRIH project exists and is verified by at least one external source. This voids the claim of not being notable. Wikipedia articles are not legitimated by hitting a made up number of people knowing about the subject of the article, as this would be against the idea of having a wikipedia. Also popularity of the subject is not a concern, either, otherwise articles like ["http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide"] would have to be deleted due to being "unpopular" and "politically incorrect". The accusation of advertisement is not applicable for wikipedia entries in general, as wikipedia articles require the user to actually inquire about the subject. The only way to use an article as advertisement is to bias it in favor of the subject and then link to it externally. Being a freely available product instead of a commercial one does not make a subject inferior to others and does not prevent it to have it's own wikipedia article. The only difference of information value presented in this article caused by an release would be to change it from "has been attempted" to "has been done", the innovation value would be very similar. My main issue with this article is the estimated release date, as that is speculation, although it is not enough to justify a deletion of the whole article and may be considered custom for modifications in general. IMO the page is well structured and rather unbiased and anyone looking for informations about game modifications will find suitable information about the project. I'd like to see similar information on other modifications in their respective articles, as I doubt that this would cause damage to wikipedia's structure or credibility. -- Anapher 11:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about the source voiding the claim of non-notability. Nobody is claiming the mod doesn't exist. The fact that something exists does not mean it is notable. Please read the guidelines. Robin Johnson 11:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Anapher's only edit. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, because there are roughly three quadrillion unreleased game mods out there, and notability through release, favourable reviews and media attention should be a requirement for a Wikipedia article. Like, erm, my own MINERVA! Ahem. But the content need not be lost - stick it on the Valve Developer Community wiki for now... HiddenInPlainSight 12:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome - To Wikipedia: Noob cannon, StukaAce, MindlessDrone, Reaperman, Ouji, Anapher. Enjoy your time here guys, and I hope this doesn't deter you guys from making contributions to Wikipedia in the future.  Wickethewok 12:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont understand why this has to be a big fight, this wiki page provides information about a videogame in development for those seeking it, it is one of the biggest and most well known in the half life two community, and has been featured i at least two    video game magazines.  To be honest this whole experiance has left something of a bad taste in my mouth about the wiki community in general, should i be afraid to post something because the wiki ghestapo decend upon my carefully made and formatted page and wipe it from existance because they nave never heard of it, and it is therefor not notible?... --Reaperman (usurped) 13:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd have to say keep. Although I was directed from a forum is it not enough that the community behind the mod makes it notable. A mention in a well known publication is notable. I understand the reasons but if this mod is removed all others that are unfished would need to be removed too without biased. That would be pointless so keep it. Pillsy 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User's only edit. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a webpage hosting company. If the modmakers want a place to host information about their mod, there is a place called the 'internet' they can use. Also, there is never any guarantee of a mod ever being released, so this mod could simply drop off the face of the earth. If the mod is actually -released-, then perhaps it might be notable enough for Wikipedia, but unless someone on the mod team is famous, definitely delete this article. Moleculor 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, fan game mod... absolutely not notable for Wikipedia article, and unless something truly extraordinary happens, it never will be. per Bwithh. - Motor (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The only thing reason people are throwing out that this should be deleted is because the mod is not released and as such does not have notability.

no·ta·bil·i·ty  Audio pronunciation of "notability" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (nt-bl-t) n. pl. no·ta·bil·i·ties

1. The state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice. 2. A prominent or notable person.

This modification is eminent in the modding community, never dropping below fifth on the top 100 half life 2 mods list on moddb. There have also been two magazine articles that found the mod to be worthy of notice. If you have a problem with the mod being free and not a commercial production, then maybe you can understand that it was included in publications that are sold commercially. This mod is very prominent even without being released, which is saying something don't you think? The fact that NMRIH can attain so much publicity and support without even being released yet shows how notable the soon to be released game is. I don't know why people have it out for this article, but there are literally thousands of other articles that are less notable than this. -Bizarro1
 * User's only two edits are this comment and signing it. Admitted user of forums below. Morgan Wick 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have such a problem with people responding to this article as their first act on Wikipedia, then maybe you should visit No More Room In Hell. Here, you will be able to verify that each user who has just recently created an account and posted here is in fact a separate person.  Just in case you want to know, my account here is Bizarro, not Bizarro1.  Most of the people who have posted here have several hundred posts on the forums. -Bizarro1
 * Please read the afdanons note at the top. Deletion debates are intended to elicit the opinions of established Wikipedia editors, not people who vote solely to save their favorite game without making any other contribution to Wikipedia (and who tend to misunderstand Wikipedia policy). In fact, I've now tagged everyone I have reason to believe is coming here from the forums, so admins know who was asked to flood this debate with keep votes knowing nothing about Wikipedia. Morgan Wick 02:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You should also read it more clearly. Deletion debates are not limited to established Wikipedia editors. The conclusion of the debate is reached by the consensus of a whole determined by the administrator. The consensus depends on the quality of arguments no matter the edit count or join date, not how many people vote for keep/delete. Point me to the policy that says that the argument brought by an experienced editor should always be considered more highly than someone who has contributed much less. Don't give me any of that "tend to" crap. Could you just please just stop trying to esteem the the argument of a newcomer to the level of a vandal? Noob cannon lol 03:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any intention of contributing to Wikipedia beyond this debate? Other than this AfD debate, the (related) Neotokyo AfD debate, and listing Resident Evil:Twilight for deletion (for similar reasons to the other two, possibly as a WP:POINT even if it does deserve to be deleted), and creating your own user page, you haven't done a thing. Wikipedia welcomes newcomers and invites them to contribute to our encyclopedia, and I would love for you to become a highly regarded member of our community, but the only main namespace article you've actually contributed to is the one that's the only reason you're contributing in the first place. Surely you have things to contribute to Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike, or even Doom (video game), or maybe you have some other interest you can contribute to? Morgan Wick 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Quit trying to beat around the bush. Me contributing to nothing else has absolutely nothing to do with this debate. You're begging the question. Secondly, you're attacking the person, not the issues. You're using my low edit count in order to aid your side of the debate. Also known as Ad hominem. Noob cannon lol 04:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's important to note that Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Garry's Mod, Red Orchestra, and many other "notable" mods were all free at one time. Ouij 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's also important to note that Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, Garry's Mod, Red Orchestra, and many other "notable" mods all released something playable. When No More Room In Hell has released its first public version and is toasted as the cream of the HL2 modding world, then a Wikipedia article will be justified. Because otherwise, it's just another work-in-progress game mod, and there are untold millions of those... --HiddenInPlainSight 18:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Yet few of these "untold millions" have survived three years, been published, are higher on the Mod Database then many released mods, has 2,000 members and 100,000 posts. Again, Neotokyo exists as an example. This modification has never once been slapped with an AFD, it has also never been released. Why don't the same rules apply here? Well then, it seems Neotokyo has also been nailed with an Afd. --StukaAce 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have moved the page to the Valve Developer Community wiki as per request. If deleted, page will be resubmitted to the main Wikipedia site upon the mods first public release. --StukaAce 20:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For those stating no notability, please note that a Google search of "No more room in hell" mod came back with over 20,000 hits, of which a majority of hits surveyed are in reference to the subject at hand. --IU2002 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the subject has been featured in PC Gamer, which is the American leader in the PC Gaming Publication industry, I'm not sure that it can be much more notable.
 * Comment "No more room in Hell" is, of course, part of a famous quote from Dawn of the Dead. Do a search for both "No more room in hell" and "half-life 2" and you will get 14,200 hits, not 20,000. MarphyBlack 06:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But still beyond the bounds of Wikipedia notability guidelines. Morgan Wick 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As per WP:Software, the subject is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, as per Guideline number one ....or an article in a reputed technical magazine (Once again PC Gamer)....--IU2002 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Motor - if this can ever get to the status of team fortress than it would merit an article, but not until then. --Hetar 21:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the only time anyone should ever be able to find out about something is if they already know about it. -Bizarro1
 * Delete per Motor and because WP:NOT a crystal ball. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Maybe when it is released, but even then, just not notable enough.--Auger Martel 11:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:NN and WP:NOT. Once it is relevant, then it should have an article.  This looks like a load of advertising.  -- Alphachimp   talk  17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How can "Non notable" be used as a reason for deletion when it has been said multiple times that the mod has an article in PC Gamer, which meets Wiki's notability guidelines?--StukaAce 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User has only edited No_more_room_in_hell and this debate, and therefore, his opinion does not matter. --StukaAce 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very funny. Morgan Wick 01:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure, go ahead and delete this Wiki, but if you do, how about we delete every wiki that has been made to cover a movie, a book, a mod, or any thing else that has work put into it and is not yet released. And if your are so hellbent on deleting things that you "don't cover", why don't we go ahead and delete EVERY wiki just to keep everyone happy? . The developers are well aware of this wiki, and have voiced no concern at it being here. EvanJO 01:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep First off, yes, I'm from the forum, same name. I'm currently not very active in the forum, and instead stay in the IRC channel for the mod. Also, I've only made a few minor edits to Wikipedia outside this article. That shouldn't matter, really, and I'm getting it out of the way first. I'll try to repeat as little as possible, but this modification has achieved notability in a Subscription Magazine distributed to a very large audience, and is one of the top Half-Life 2 mods on Mod DB. At the time of this comment it is #3 on the list, with more "Unique Hits Total" (14,818) than even Gmod. That's almost 15,000 unique hits from a single webpage. It has been interviewed by an internet radio station and featured in a magazine, for being notable. It is respected and lauded by those both within and out of the internet community of zombie modifications and Half-Life 2 modifications in general. I vote keep for this article because many of the arguments against are biased or irrelevant due to the circumstance in that this mod is due to release soon, anyhow. The prediction that is being termed under Crystal Ball is a statement by the team mebers themselves. Though the general lack of media as opposed to other modifications may seem to work against my point, the team has been incredibly tight-lipped about the modification, hiding the overwhelming majority of their work from the public. Taking the released media as a sign of the mod in general would be like looking at a drop of rain and claiming that there is no such thing as a flood. As for my statement that the arguments against this page are biased, other mods mentioned earlier in this discussion were only paid attention to during this discussion. They were allowed to sit unviewed until brought up as 'evidence', and only then were they properly brought to debate. It seems that too many of those voting Delete are skipping over the discussion and going straight for the kill, as that is what seems to be the opinion of the other Wikipedia regulars. This argument is undoubtedly biased on both sides, but there are valid arguments within that bias. The only way that this article could serve as an advertisement is if it was featured on the main page, and even then I use the term advertisement very lightly. The intention of this article is to inform those who wish to be informed, the same as Wikipedia itself. --RelicLord 01:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User is self admitted member of the Forums --StukaAce 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Only one edit not on this article, but a month ago and on an unrelated topic (and so far as I know, constructive). Morgan Wick 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose that information being known, Morgan, but why would it matter? If we are all here to debate whether or not an article should be removed, and are basing this argument on Wikipedia standards, what difference does it make that someone is new? It seems that you are trying to belittle the opinions of those against you by bringing up background information. You have not told the background of those who say Delete, only those who say Keep. We are all stating opinions and facts to support our respective sides on the issue. I would appreciate it if the debate could be taken at value, and above a personal level. Are my words denounced by the sole fact that I am writing them? What person, only knowing of me through this page, can properly judge me? Categorizing me only through an opinion is prejudice, and nothing more. --RelicLord 20:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I just briefly had a look over this discussion after just being informed of its existance only minutes ago. I am the project manager for No More Room in Hell.  Theres just a few points I would like to make in defense of keeping this article on wikipedia.  First off, this project is very notable having been mentioned in PC Gamer (US) and PC Format (UK).  Both magazines are highly respected in the field of PC Gaming and mod development news.  Another reason, as mentioned before, is that this project is usually in the top 5 of the ModDB Top 100 mods.  We have a highly dedicated fanbase as well as a thriving community.  What would be the point of deleting this wiki entry?  Does this entry harm anyone?  Does it hurt anything?  No, it doesn't.  As for the arguement about it being advertising, that is rediculous.  In order to find this you would have to actually search for it (to the best of my knowledge).  This entry to me seems completely legitimate and should be kept.  Thanks. --Cs42886
 * User is self admitted Mod Leader of this project. --StukaAce 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Quit mocking me, StuckaAce. See WP:POINT. User has only edited this AfD debate and the page under consideration. Morgan Wick 19:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User "StuckaAce" has not participated in this debate, and his opinions should be considered null. See Staying Cool When Editing Gets Hot before labeling an action as "mocking."
 * Comment (Because I always stick my nose in). Out of curiosity, what is everyone's beef with just deleting it, and then recreating it upon a successful release?  With everyone seeming to expect an imminent release, it's not like you'll have to wait long.  Minimum effort, minimum fuss - everyone's happy.   Unless, of course, you don't think it'll be successful. --Angry Lawyer 11:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment People search Wikipedia for information. If someone wants quick information, they usually consult Wikipedia. The article exists to inform others of the mods existence, and can be updated with newer information quicker then a normal webpage, as the webmaster may be on break or something similar.--StukaAce 13:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not supposed to be free web-hosting; all that publicly exists of the mod so far are screenshots and other media, some text and a promise that something playable will get released one day; also, if the mod creators have a website that's difficult to update, then that's their problem. And they shouldn't really be significantly editing a Wikipedia article about themselves, anyhow. --HiddenInPlainSight 16:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Only editing of the article done by developers was removing redunancy under developers. The rest of editing has been done by forum moderators and fans, most of whom (if not all) do not have proper access to the website in order to update it.--IU2002 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertisment for a unreleased game mod, keep to planethalflife.com please --Zandarx talk 12:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)]
 * Comment What Wiki entry for unreleased software, music and books ISN'T advertising?--IU2002 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons clearly stated in nomination. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - reasons clearly stated on nomination regarding notability have been repeatedly rebuked.--IU2002 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Proof that Wikipedia status need not play a part in this discussion. A simple, "kill" call with no backing evidence of its own. --RelicLord 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No other mod in PC Gamer screenshot has an article. Therefore using it to establish notability is questionable. I have already stated that whether it is not a trivial mention, per WP:SOFTWARE, is something that could be debated, and that is the main claim to notability for this article. Morgan Wick 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Plus anywhere from 14,000 to 20,000 hits on Google, depending on search keywords used, and extensive coverage on various mod-related sites, and listed in the top 5 of the top 100 mods on ModDB, a highly respected site in the modification scene.--IU2002 19:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, heres another magazine article. PC Format's October 2004 Edition. http://home.comcast.net/~cs42886/scan.jpg --StukaAce 20:56, 19 June 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.