Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night at the Office

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 17:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard closing disclaimer: If this discussion contained any opinions offered by single purpose accounts or arguments not based on applicable policy, they were discounted in assessing consensus for this decision. Sandstein 17:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Night at the Office[edit]

Night at the Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not a notable half-life single player mod. There are very few notable single player mods, They Hunger and Poke646, that's pretty much it. Even deleted single player mods like Azure Sheep and Sweet Half-Life had more community news and sources than this. - hahnchen 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And because it is not "notable", it should not be on Wikipedia? I mean, are we working on an extremely tight ration of bandwidth here or something? If this the policy, then we might as well burn down 30% of the existing articles, because few things are really that "notable". This article has already BEEN considered for deletion, only a couple of months ago. I saved it, but now it is to be deleted again? --Zemoch 13:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am the designer of Night at the Office and seem to share the same sentiments as Zemoch. While i agree the mod is not as notable as mods such as They Hunger, the reason for that is mainly due to the fact that it was released very late (in comparison with the popular HL1 mods) and also it was released post-HL2.

I have received hundreds of emails giving feedback and thanks for this mod and it would be a shame for the entry to be deleted from wikipedia on such trivial grounds. I was under the impression that wikipedia was a encyclopedia resource and I fail to see a valid reason why the page for my mod is not allowed here? ---Mr Greenfish

  • Delete. Not notable. Where are the independent, trustworthy, third-party write-ups? —Wrathchild (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The mod was featured on several of the main half-life news sites and mod related sites, including:- -interlopers.net ( http://www.interlopers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3603 ) -modresource.com ( http://www.modresource.com/reviews/nato.php ) -hl-improvement.com ( http://www.hl-improvement.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=c247e7ab734a066a8b8771d7e305555e&topic=233.0 ) -hlgaming.com ( http://www.hlgaming.com/reviews/mod_night_at_the_office.php ) plus more (including some foreign language sites too (spanish, german and chinese))

also the mod covered half a page in PC Gamer UK, which is arguable the best selling pc games mag in the UK, and was distributed on the cover-disc for the same issue.

So please enlighten me why this mod should be deleted from wikipedia, i do not think "not notable" is valid or fair, especially when you take into consideration the above ---Mr Greenfish

  • Delete - Fails WP:V (a policy), WP:N (a strongly adhered-to guideline). Has nothing to support any claims to notability, absoutely no sources at all, and I think it fails WP:NPOV (another policy) as well. The Kinslayer 10:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 10:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If you think it fails WP:NOV policy, then go ahead and give examples and edit it accordingly. I can't be bothered defending this anymore; I have made my opinion very clear on this and I stand by it. You guys asked for third-party trustworth write-ups and so i provided them. Perhaps you should realise that it is this level of cencorship that prevents it from being as notable as you require. ---Mr Greenfish


What exactly is it that you want? Should the links to the third-party sources be added to the article itself? I can do that. As you can clearly see, the opinion brought forward by Mr Greenfish and myself is supported by several internet sources which have already been provided to you. Are those sources no good? Instead of just shouting "delete", tell me what I need to do. Also, this article has not been changed since it was taken off the deletion list a while ago. Why is it suddenly on it again? --Zemoch 14:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, I maintain mods hold the notability of their respective game, individual notability then determines if it should get mentioned on a bulk mod list or have its own article. I think this article could be salvaged with a clean up. Comment: Mr Greenfish, Zemoch I have no idea whats going on but lately people have been getting too over zealous with AFD nominations. My suggestion is take a look at other game mod articles and then tweak this one to match. In particular that claim to being an independent game really struck me as odd. In any case, I'm on a counter offensive to balance out the AFD insanity a little, if you would like to help reply to articles listed on WP:CVG/D. --MegaBurn 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment about the independant game comment, so I have trimmed down a couple of parts, mainly the first paragraph. I have also removed any mention of me as the developer. If it needs to be trimmed down even more, please say. ---Mr Greenfish

  • Delete. I have no doubt that this mod took a lot of work, and it may well be good to play. But as it stands the article does not provide any evidence to support the view that it is notable. The thing is this: existence is not per se notable. We need to see discussions, comments and references from important sources within your community. Imagine a quiz show: if someone took "mods" as their specialist subject, would this mod be a "fair" topic for a million-dollar question ? If the answer is yes, where would they have got the information about it ? That's the source we need to see. WMMartin 18:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, I do suggest that we give the article's creator a couple of days to add references. Why does the article not mention the coverage of this mod in PC Gamer UK ? For me that would count as a good reference. If another couple of references like that can be found, I'd say we've got notability, and I'll join the keep team. WMMartin 19:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, they've already covered it nicely, no more WP pages to add. Nashville Monkey 09:17, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Night_at_the_Office&oldid=1138163344"