Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Half-Life mods (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Half-Life mods, List of Half-Life 2 mods[edit]

Prior deletions have been overturned at WP:DRV so discussion can start afresh here. Please consult the discussion at deletion review and all of its precendents. Procedural listing, so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am so tempted to say "Neutral per nom" right now :) --WikiSlasher 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go out on a limb, and say two things:
1. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, vehicle for promotion, utilitarian, and a whole load of other things beside.
2. To random future participants: If your argument is going to be along the lines of "Keep, useful" or "Keep, I've played them" or "Keep, does no harm", just save yourself the bother.
- By that logic:
  1. WP:N and WP:GAMES states that the list is notable and has the potential for growth.
  2. To those for deletion: If your argument is going to be something like "Delete, cruft" or "Delete, I haven't played them" or "Delete, unencyclopedic", don't trouble yourself.--WaltCip 02:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a result: Categorise or delete. Do not keep as list. Chris cheese whine 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, with categorise you mean something like what we had before, that would be originally physics mods, partial conversions, total conversions and at a later time released single player, released multiplayer, unreleased single player, unreleased multiplayer? (It's pretty obvious that unreleased mods are a no-no because of notability (with maybe one single exception), so an unreleased mods category can't be used anymore.) --Pizzahut2 21:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files." Also "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It appears the article is both. Navou ^talk 03:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In the current state, with a lot of editing being done after your delete recommendation, would you still say that "a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" applies? --Pizzahut2 21:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is also not a directory. MER-C 03:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part of the policy does it fail? These aren't lists of loosely associated topics, which is what you seem to be arguing. How much more closely associated can you get? Each is a list of mods of a single computer game. --- RockMFR 05:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is neither a directory (which this seems to be), a repository of links (which this is) nor an indiscriminate collection of information. Yes, this list isn't indiscriminate but it makes Wikipedia seem that way. This is the kind of thing better suited to specialised websites. MER-C 12:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if this seems like lawyering, but one article being a directory != Wikipedia being a directory. And the WP definition of directory is a phone book, Internet guide, plot summary, or cookbook. This is neither. Lists aren't uncommon in WikiPedia. If Keep nom fails, though (and I don't think it will, based on the quality of the arguments I have seen - in this case, I'm judging by consensus, not straw poll), allow article time to be gamiafied to Encyclopedia Gamia. The information is notable.--WaltCip 13:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or categorise The fact that the article already has references and external links already proves that the article has some sort of notability. Let me also bring up the fact that WP:GAMES states that notability can be achieved if a game or the like has been reviewed by non-trivial published works; that's good enough for me. Unfortunately, I see no reason to AFD here, other than people saying, in short, "because it's crufty", which is a vio of WP:ILIKEIT. That being said, blocking out people from saying "Keep, I've played them" knocks out a large portion of people who intend to vote in this debate, since those who have played the mods know the full degree of their notability. You could easily domino-effect to games in general, which I certainly hope you are not implying. The article is fit for print, according to the policies and the reasons through which I have cited. In fact, in the previous AFD, WP:SNOW was close at hand, so this whole DRV and repeat AFD hubbub shouldn't even exist.--WaltCip 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Bear in mind, WP:ILIKEIT is not a policy or guideline.~~ Navou ^talk 04:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clarify please? Do you mean "I like it" is not a valid policy-based reason, or do you mean "discounting on the basis of I like it" is not policy? Chris cheese whine 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apoligies, I mis-read the above comment by WaltCip, so I feel my comment was premature, or even inappropiate.
    - In responses to Navou, with this in mind, the DRV should have been closed with a full overturn, since many of those who endorsed deletion cited WP:ILIKEIT as the reasoning behind the article's deletion. I'd hate to be a Wikilawyer, but this is s.i.c.--WaltCip 04:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you clarify what you're saying here? I'm having trouble following it. Chris cheese whine 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Clarification: My original "Delete..." recommendation stands. My comment about WP:ILIKEIT is withdrawn. Apoligies for the confusion. Navou ^talk 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Keep, I've played the game" is not based on policy either, so if a user intends to argue based on that, their argument (because AfD is not a vote) is invalid. Catting is fine, redirecting to the cat is also fine. ColourBurst 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, no one has used that argument yet, but by denying people that argument, you're effectively suppressing them regardless. And AFDs have been decided on non-policy arguments before as well. See the Esperanza or the humor articles. Actually, I wouldn't mind a few of you chaps deleting those silly articles after this AFD is over.--WaltCip 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - We haven't "suppressed" them. We can't prevent them for using whatever reason they feel like, it'll just get discounted because it's not policy. Esperanza/humour pages are different because they're not in article space, thus not subject to article policies (they're not even decided in AfD, they're decided in MfD). ColourBurst 15:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two basic issues at hand here- do the individual mods pass our policies? If so, should we have a list of them in addition to a category? Most, if not all, of the mods listed in these articles have received independent coverage in gaming magazines/websites. So... should we have a list of them? Lists are much more useful than categories, especially in the case of List of Half-Life 2 mods. This article does a pretty good job of differentiating between them all. So, as I've said before, we should keep both of these. --- RockMFR 05:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Certainly populable with notable, verifiable material; not at all indiscriminate, and not redundant with categorization. — brighterorange (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really nothing other than a list of external links, i.e. a web directory. See WP:NOT. If this were considered encyclopedic, then lists of links to popular YouTube videos can't be far behind. Any mods meeting article inclusion guidelines can get their own articles and be placed in appropriate categories. Quale 07:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles are of a good quality (hey, I've seen a lot worse) and they're not just lists, they've had work put into them, there's images and an infobox and all the formatting is correct. All of the information in the articles is verifiable. The reason I bring up the amount of work put into it is that that means people do pay attention to it and so the wiki process will improve the articles over time. As the two users above me have stated, a list is not redundant to a category because articles allow for more content than lists, (explanations of individual mods, pictures, not just a list of articles). If I'm not mistaken it is possible for things to be notable enough to mention them somewhere in Wikipedia but not notable enough to have their own article so lists contain more information. They're not really lists per se, so maybe editors ought to consider making them more like just "Half-Life mods" and "Half-Life 2 mods" and then of course have the whole "history of modmaking" and all the rest of it (with reliable sources cited of course). Oh and there should be a brief mention of what ModDB is and how "authoritative" (for want of a better word) it is, it's referred to for a lot of them.--WikiSlasher 09:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In short, there is encyclopedic content to be found in these. --WikiSlasher 09:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles have good encyclopedic content and actually serve an important function for gamers. Also, these lists are certainly not "lists of indiscriminate information," as they have incredibly clear parameters and are not/could never be infinite. -- Kicking222 14:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that the mod community involved with these games is strong enough to generate enough verifiable info in order to list articles on individual mods. In turn, a list like this can be useful for skimming and acquiring info on each mod.
However, both lists should only contain mods with articles on WP - if it can't stand on its own two feet it shouldn't be crawling around on this list. There seems little point trying to maintain an incomplete list (even in terms of not containing every HL mod listed on WP) if the articles contained on that list aren't properly referenced and could be AFD'd at any time. I'd ask contributors interested in these articles to make sure their efforts are aimed at improving the articles already on WP and ensuring they remain.
As a side note, having websites listed after each mod name is irritating to read and smacks of advertising - they should be in the mod's article as an external link. Also, there are several mods with articles on WP which are not listed here. Hooking up articles to this list and any categories that exist will be of use to readers and encourage contributors to follow the path and improve articles/update the list - that's what it's all about. There's an opportunity here. QuagmireDog 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, having looked again, there are links provided next to most if not all of the mods, there has been some good work done here. It's a work in progress, one that I'm confident will bear fruit. QuagmireDog 01:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also, I don't see why calling something "useful" as a reason for keeping should be discounted. Whether an article is useful to have on Wikipedia or not should in fact be at the heart of each AfD debate. Now, it is fair to ask for someone using that reasoning to expand on that, but a comment saying that shouldn't be outright disregarded. VegaDark 07:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:WaltCip. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a notable article, considering the number of links to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhys42 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To above posters This is an attempt to reach consensus, not a straw poll. Also, to the one who "strong kept" please sign your name.--WaltCip 20:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've written a to do list which, if followed, should whip the list of Half-Life mods into shape. --Pizzahut2 23:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for cleanup, nuff said. --MegaBurn 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~The purpose of a list of Half-Life mods is mainly just that, having a list. The partitioning into categories makes sense but it shouldn't be used as a reason to keep a list.~~ A reason to keep a list would be that it offers significantly more information than a mere category (such as the Category:Half-Life mods) does. I don't think that a link to the article, description and optional award is sufficient to justify a list. Perhaps it should contain the same information which is given in the List of webcomics: Name/link to article, author, date of first public (playable) release, date of last update, and ... the link to the website. This last piece of information is arguable because WP is not a repository of links, however it's also in the web comic list, so why not here? --Pizzahut2 11:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading WP:LIST, I guess partitioning into categories counts as "grouped by theme". --Pizzahut2 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it not possible to rather have a wiki book or something on Half Life and transwiki the material their. I don't think that the articles on Half Life should systematically be trashed but I do question their value in an Encyclopaedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Hjul (talk • contribs) 11:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- There's the Valve developer community, the lists of Half-Life mods could be "transwikied" to there. However I wouldn't transfer all Half-Life related articles, because the main purpose is to be a resource for developers. --Pizzahut2 21:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the mods are notable for inclusion. QuillOmega0 23:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Resaon: it useful to both the user and the mod maker. It gives the user a easy place to find the mod. It helps the mod maker becaues it avertise (is that spelled right?) mod. Also the 3rd party mods are legial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smile5187 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- "It helps the mod maker becaues it avertise (is that spelled right?) mod." - According to WP:NOT, this would actually be a reason to delete the articles. --Pizzahut2 14:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, perhaps "advertise" is the wrong word. Perhaps a better description, although somewhat elitist, would be "Wikify".--WaltCip 19:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Not notable on an encyclopedia, gamecruft.--Zxcvbnm 02:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One strong delete doesn't match several keeps, I'm afraid. Also, a strong in front of your delete without a proponent argument or policy other than "cruft" deserves no attention on the nominator's part, especially since you haven't explained why it isn't notable, other than from point-of-view. See WP:GAMES, WP:N and WP:ILIKEIT. Note that WP:FAN applies only to original research and WP:NEO.--WaltCip 02:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IF it can be restored to its former usefulness - the current edit is totally useless and ought to be deleted. Single-player mods are the 'red-headed stepchildren' of the gaming world and this article was the _only_ place where one could get a feel for the status of the community (can't do that now, of course. Looks like the thing was edited by a very non-npov person from the 'single-player mods suck!' school of thought.) Also, to the idea that a non-released mod is, by definition, non-notable, ah...hogwash. I'd to like to hear the argument that the Black Mesa mod is non-notable; that project has Valve's direct blessing, for one thing.

Gooshy 09:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- You're free to discuss it on the article's talk page. --WikiSlasher 13:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That being said, I'll hastily tag the article with "needs cleanup" after/if the Keep falls through.--WaltCip 14:53, 17 December 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.