Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Specialists


 * 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. Krakatoa Katie  04:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Specialists
Requested sources about a week ago. No responses and I haven't found anything that would count towards this subject meeting WP:V or WP:RS. A trivial link from the Steam website seems to be it. Delete as failing secondary reliable sources criteria. Wickethewok 06:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Delete' No citations, poorly done.
 * Delete per nom. I am generally in favour of mods being kept (and applying the WP:SOFT criteria to them is a bit silly) but this one just doesn't have enough verifiable information about it. Cynical 07:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in PC Gamer. Needs a lot of work but it seems the victim of inattention, rather than fundamentally flawed. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cynical and WP:SOFT. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources here here here here here here and here per WP:RS. Plus, I don't know why you're picking on TS when there are plenty of other software projects without references. TS has a problem with a lot of its sources being too old to find anymore. Vino 15:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Night Gyr. The article needs plenty of work, but it's not a lost cause, and besides, TS is a fairly notable mod; of the literally hundreds (thousands?) of Half-life and Half-life 2 mods that have been released, it is one of only 26 that have been selected by Valve to appear on their site. This article belongs on Wikipedia, it just needs some TLC. --UNHchabo 06:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Listings on Moddb and Steam are pretty trivial. The GameSpy ones and other things listed above are questionable as well as to whether they can be considered reliable publications.  Was it ever it a magazine or anything?  Seems like many HL mods have been.  Wickethewok 13:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What I was trying to say was that Moddb listings are trivial, but it takes a pretty well established mod in order to make the Steam page; I think you'd be hard pressed to call any of those mods unsuccessful. Hell, TS has more servers up at any time than most other 3rd party HL/HL2 mods, including The Battlegrounds (1 and 2), Firearms, Dystopia, and Hostile Intent. Not only that, TS was pretty innovative in its design. How many multiplayer games implement slow-motion? The game is not as popular as it once was, but you can't delete it just because people don't pay attention to the article anymore. That would be like trying to delete Action Quake 2. --UNHchabo 13:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * TS was (as far as I can tell) the first game to implement slow-motion in a multiplayer context. It also has a larger and more configurable array of weapons then any game before it, because it broke the Half-Life engine's builtin 30-odd weapon limit. It's also notable because many of the community members who have contributed to the game have also contributed to games like Hostile Intent, Dystopia, Digital Paintball, and even Counter-Strike. It's been featured in some Spanish and Portugese PC gaming magazines, but we're having trouble finding scans of the articles, because our forums were reset a couple years ago. Vino 14:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Vino. I see no other delete motions, why don't we lift the deletion consideration already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.172.183 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per nearly everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baldghoti (talk • contribs)
 * Keep per Vino. This game is very much alive and is cited in several sources.  At the very least, it is mentioned here on Steam's game browser, which shows that people will want some more information about this game.  Smileman66 02:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per DWombat. It's interesting that the credibility of a user-created mod is coming into question under a user-created encyclopedia. Sources or not this mod made just as much impact, if not more, than those you call legitimate.


 * 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.