Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Alert: A Path Beyond (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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The result was nomination withdrawn after reliable media coverage of the subject was found. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 17:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert: A Path Beyond

edit
AfDs for this article:
Red Alert: A Path Beyond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Disputed PROD. Article was previously deleted, then re-created without addressing any of the reasons it was originally deleted. Fails to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. No reliable third-party sources to assert notability within the article, or were found via web search or news archive. Existing sources are self-published information from the makers of the game itself, or other unreliable sources, and therefore cannot be used to assert the notability of this mod. Recommend delete and maybe salt. Randomran (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Withdraw: Coverage in reliable sources found, in particular a PC Gamer review that did not come up in Internet searches. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And see here at Awards and Recognition. They are source over there. Seriously you should open your two wide eyes and explore instead of deleting every mod articles. It is difficult to find coverage for mods. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of searching online and only found unreliable sources like modDB, or a trivial mention at 1up in a list of literally 100 downloads. But that PC Gamer "Mod of the Month" award is exactly the kind of reference that's needed for notability, and it's the kind of magazine that you just can't find with an internet search. The problem is that the source isn't properly listed in the article. The article doesn't even have a "references" section. I'm going to withdraw the nomination, but these kinds of misunderstandings could be avoided if an article actually included these references. And I admit responsibility for the misunderstanding too: I usually tag an article for references rather than going straight for the AFD, but I saw this article had been deleted before and figured it was trying to circumvent notability policy. I'm not too proud to admit I was wrong. But I want to add that this article would be drastically improved if it used proper references. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even i could not find the source on the search engines. I found all this source in their websites on media section. That is where i found that many source. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I don't usually check the actual website, because that's considered a self-published source and thus unreliable. Either way, thanks for finding the sources. Let's add these to the article with proper citations, now. Randomran (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sources can be found here to establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — as per Skywalker/Visor a number of sources in a section related specifically to notability are listed, including reputable print magazines and games-industry sources. It makes me wonder how "pretty damn hard" you looked, and what your personal association (if any) there is with this article or this subject given how adamant about this you are. After looking "casually" I was unable to locate a source to the eGames article though, and the talk pages indicates the original URL if any is dormant. Perhaps a web archive link for that one particular source could be tracked down. 75.82.176.52 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The mod has been awarded by different media, and the content is verifiable. By the way, I suggest that we abandon all the notability guidelines since the policies are enough for deletion debates. --RekishiEJ (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the trivial mentions in the world do not provide the significant coverage needed for the reception section, but the Let's Play! review is reliable enough IMO and it's in-depth, coupled with the tidbits and awards it's enough for a reception section and demonstrates notability. Someoneanother 14:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Alert:_A_Path_Beyond_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142235679"