Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rise of the Reds (2nd 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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Rise of the Reds
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is non-notable. Article Quality is poor. Cbrittain10 (talk&#124;contribs) 18:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This could probably be speedied as a re-creation of an article that was previously deleted because eight years later the mod is still considered to be non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I can't find anything to show that it merits an article on Wikipedia or even really a mention in the main article for the series since it doesn't appear to be an overly popular mod for the game, all things considered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * how about you stop being an idiot and simply browse ModDB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4423:5F17:C946:F93B:EF7E:BDB9 (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL when responding to comments. The issue here is that while the mod exists and has a small fandom (WP:ITEXISTS, WP:ITSPOPULAR), that doesn't mean that this mod is particularly notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm stressing that this is per Wikipedia's guidelines since what may be acceptable or considered reliable off of Wikipedia may not necessarily be considered usable here as far as showing notability goes. At best the ModDB would be considered a routine database listing, which cannot show notability for the mod. It could back up small details but it cannot show any notability per reliable source guidelines. I'm sorry that you feel upset that this is up for deletion and I know that sometimes people can take deletion very, very personally, but making personal attacks against anyone will not win over anyone at AfD. If anything, it can actually weaken any further argument you make since your first edit was to resort to name calling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is worth noting that there may be a lot of sockpuppetry involved. I got a lot of backlash for this article being deleted from the fanatics in their community, which is why I had to remove the PROD. It appears from the above comment that this is already happening. Cbrittain10 (talk&#124;contribs) 18:40, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this with the "not a vote" tag since your comment gives off the impression that there may be people coming in to vote or otherwise make unproductive comments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   19:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (drone)  @ 20:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: New sources given. Could save article, need additional discussion, Cbrittain10 (talk&#124;contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't seem to have the third party coverage in reliable sources that would have it meet the WP:GNG. ModDB is cited extensively, but it doesn't look to be a RS. Sergecross73   msg me  16:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt Entirely non notable module. Safiel (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm inclined to say this isn't notable, but I found several webpages that may or may not constitute sufficient sourcing, and I'd appreciate if someone could have a look:      They're all gaming sites, but not all of them appear to be directly connected to the subject.  Searching for sources was complicated by the fact that the phrase is often used to refer to other real-world events, so a more thorough effort might reveal more sources.   ekips 39 00:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These are reliable sources, and could probably "save" the article in question. However, they might at most bring the grading to a start-class or C-band because of a lack of detailed secondary sources. These are mostly interviews of the developers. I actually was linked to some sources which may be reliable, but need clarification as these are new media which is currently not covered by wikipedia policies. But this is for a seperate discussion, and right now, the article is of a substantially low quality and is not notable from the sources linked, as it relies on primary sources. I will relist this because of the new information however. Cbrittain10 (talk&#124;contribs) 16:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrittain10 (talk&#124;contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Of the sources given above, few look like they'd really be usable:


 * 1) This is a routine database type listing. It looks like it's been written by someone involved with the mod in the first place. None of the reviews on the page are usable since those can be written by anyone, meaning zero editorial oversight. There's really nothing on this page that can show notability. It could be used to back up trivial details but not show notability.
 * 2) This one is kind of iffy. It's an interview, but the website doesn't really show whether it was an interview held by the site, what (if any) type of editorial oversight they have, and so on. There really isn't much on there that shows how verifiable the site is, so I don't know that this would pass muster at WP:RS/N if I were to post it there.
 * 3) This one is better since bit-tech is far better known, but the issue here is that this is pretty brief when it comes down to it. The mod is briefly mentioned as taking third place in a contest held by Mod DB and typically awards only give notability if they win the top prize.
 * 4) This one doesn't even mention the mod in the article. It's mentioned in the comments but not the article itself.
 * 5) The issue with this one is that while GameStar is a known site, this appears to be a review by a random user as opposed to a staff member, since the translated headline for the page reads that these are reader reviews for the mod. This means that any user/reader can come on and write a review for the mod, akin to how anyone could say, go on to Goodreads and review a book or go to Amazon or IMDb and review a movie.
 * 6) The problem with this is that ultimately this is only a brief mention of the game in a list of other games. It's very briefly mentioned and the description given looks like it was probably taken from a press release or official writeup for the game. This would be considered a routine mention at best (meaning it can't give notability) since lists like these are typically made from the press releases/requests that are sent to the website in general. This isn't really like one of those lists that give a little more detail and mark the list as "best of 2014/fest/etc".


 * The only two that look remotely usable are the bit-tech and Command and Conquer articles and even then I don't really think that either would really be the type of article that would really give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not that I'm die hard against this being on Wikipedia, just that these are extremely weak sources that wouldn't pass muster if this were kept and brought back to AfD in a few months time. If any argument is going to be made to keep the article or show notability, the sources need to be far stronger than this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What you say makes sense. Also, Wikiproject Video Games actively classifies ModDB as unreliable as well. See WP:VG/S under the unreliable section. My original comment was just a hunch that it was unreliable, but theres actually a consensus against its use. Sergecross73   msg me  03:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Command & Conquer: Generals – Zero Hour. It did get a little bit of coverage in reliable sources: Polygon and Bit-Tech.  It's already in that article, so there isn't really any need to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really "coverage", it's just Polygon posting the top 10 list of ModDB, and it was on it. That's about as brief of a passing mention as possible... Sergecross73   msg me  14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I said it should be redirected. I'm alright with deletion, but it seems like this could be a useful redirect based on its popularity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Tokyogirl79's analysis of the sources I provided. Could also be redirected or merged, but in any case it doesn't look suitable for its own article.   ekips 39 03:43, 15 January 2015 (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.