Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidden: Source (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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden: Source[edit]

Video game mod with no claims of notability. All original research and none of the information comes from reliable secondary sources. No attempts to meet any sort of verifiability requirements (no press coverage, etc...). It should be noted that this was kept in a previous AFD; however, there was never any rationale presented other than WP:ILIKEIT and Google hits (probably the worst gauge of video game-related notability. Wickethewok 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a policy/guideline on re-nominating an article for deletion? Icewolf34 18:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the only general guideline is that re-nominations should be carefully considered and not done immediately after a previous AFD (which in this case was 7 months ago). Wickethewok 18:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point, I beg to differ. The article is useful and interesting, as it allows for the user to discover more about a mod they may potentially want to try without having to wade through the website (I know this from personal experience) and it does no harm to keep the article here. That's three arguments for it right there.--Chef Brian 18:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT actually covers "it's useful", "it's interesting", and "there's no harm". The first two destroy the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and the third one is simply false. ColourBurst 08:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it simply isn't notable. If this is better than the official website, then maybe that's a reason for the mod's creators to improve their website... — Haeleth Talk 19:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recieved a full page of coverage in PC Gamer UK[1], IGF 2006 finalist, covered by 1up.com and several other fansites noted on their front page. Yeah, that's notable enough for me. --SevereTireDamage 08:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per TireDamage. Having it's own article in a published magazine is better than about 99% of mods will ever do, notability-wise. More coverage would be nice though (and that article should be mentioned in this article, which sounds a little game-guidey at present) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is notable, I've seen reviews of this in magazines. Steam figures show 100 servers running this mod right now [2]. This easily has most press sources than 99% of the webcomics/forums/"fads" that pollute Wikipedia. - Hahnch e n 17:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They have their list of mentionings on the website, just click those flashy buttons. IGF 2006 Finalist, some Editor's Choices. It was also on German TV (Giga link).
Keep - Counter Strike had an article before it was being sold by valve. 68.94.25.235 02:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but make sure to add those sources --Peephole 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this game mod is notable actually and has press coverage Yuckfoo 17:25, 15 August 2006 (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.