Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix rpg


 * 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 04:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix rpg
Wikipedia is not a guide to every mod for every game written ever. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per my nomination. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes i realise this, but im not doing it for every mod made for every game ever made, this is just for that mod, because i think it should be up there, becasue it is a well liked mod. Are there any other reasons you think it should not be allowed?

I see no where in the rules where it says this is not allowed, and i spent 2 hours reading them. None of the views are biased all the information is informative.


 * Delahuex


 * Delete vote and Response to Delahuex. First of all, this mod is non-notable. If it was released YESTERDAY, there can be no claim that it's "well-liked" unless an extraordinary number of people have downloaded it in the past 24 hours. There's no assertion of notability in the article- a self-released space combat game (or mod) is in no way unique, and the article does not claim why this particular mod is, especially considering the Freelancer}} page lists almost two dozen mods. Second, OF COURSE the views in the article are biased. There's inherent bias in the second sentence of the article: "The best feature about this modification is its enthusiastic community and the great addition of flyable ships, weapons and new bases." The "Mod Features" section also has an exclamation point after almost every feature, which doesn't exactly scream "encyclopedic." Third, the article was created by one of the designers of the game (see the last name listed under "The Mod Team"), which constitutes an advertisement (which the article obviously is). To Delahuex and anyone else who might read this: I'm sorry for biting the newcomer, which is something I hate doing, but I'm not really sure how to state my argument without being a bit condescending. To Delahuex, don't take this the wrong way, as I'm not trying to attack you. Here's what I am saying: The subject of this article is non-notable, and almost certainly will never be notable; as a result, it does not need a page on Wikipedia. -- [[User:Kicking222|Kicking222 16:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Delahuex reply:

No sorry, the date i put for release was the new update, it has actually been out for around 3 months now, and therefore is well liked. You say it lists 2 dozen mods, yet we are the only mod to take inicitive to make a wiki page, because we have the confidence that it is worth it. We currently have 211 members to our mod that play regularly. The date i set was for the new server upgrade and the new mod, since this was the massive release with bug fixes and more, and with already 211 members, we can only grow. I realise your argument, but i really think this is worth it. If no-one else agrees with me then fine, i concede, and dont worry about being condescending, i can live with it ;) Plus the best feature line is fair enough, ill chnage that, and the exclamation marks. COme on this is my first wiki page :) Plus, delahuex and delahue are different people.
 * Reply I understand why you feel the page should stick around, and I sit corrected on the aspects of my argument which were incorrect. In addition, I do complement your initiative in creating the page. With that said, there is still not enough notability for the mod. If having 200 players was a goal, then I congratulate you on having over 200 players, but that's certainly not a large enough number to assert WP notability (I could write a blog read by far more than 200 people that would still not be "notable"). Perhaps the reason none of the other mods have articles (besides people simply not putting in the effort to create one, as you did) is that none of them are sufficiently distinguished. Few mods are. -- Kicking222 18:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Delahuex reply:

Ok, you have raised valid points, i will concede this time, delete it if you must. ;) No problem, ill just have to find anothe ronline free encyclopedia to post it on :S


 * Delete per Kicking. Mango juice talk 18:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kicking; he said it all. This article is far better suited to a gaming forum or blog.  RGTraynor 19:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per author's request. Fagstein 02:49, 10 May 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.