Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quake II: Lost Marine

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 ~ trialsanderrors 05:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quake II: Lost Marine[edit]

Quake II: Lost Marine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Video game mod with no real claims of notability. No sources either, failing WP:V. Googling only brings up assorted download sites/forums/usual stuff. Delete as failing WP:V/no sources. Wickethewok 16:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: verifiability was easy enough, there's a link to the project page at bottom of the article, and the project page does list the 2003 article as being the reason the conversion project was started. Notability might be questionable, but WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia! RunedChozo 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability requires reliable independent sources. The project's webpage is certainly not independent. Wickethewok 16:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The status of the project, and its existence, are no problem to verify. If you want to be a deletionist, that's certainly your right, but WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia, the interview with Carmack is indeed verifiable (and I've verified it myself), the status of the project is listed on multiple Doom 3 repositories. I still vote keep and think you should do better research. RunedChozo 16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming I'm reading the same interview you are, John Carmack had nothing to do with this project. He doesn't once mention "Quake II: Lost Marine" - if you're looking at a different interview please post the link. Wickethewok 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna ask one simple question: are you really so dense you can't try a simple google test? RunedChozo 18:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors do not accept hits on a search engine as a valid measure of an article's notability. If you want to implement a search engine test, though, you need to do it properly. The search in your link finds all pages with the words "Quake", "Lost", and "Marine" in any portion of the text (including more than 120,000 on the subject of various real-world earthquakes). If you search for the string "Quake II: Lost Marine" (as in this search, you only get 538 hits in return, and the majority of those appear to be download sites hosting the file. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a notable mod, though I don't object to the source (V does not require a source be independent when the information is non-contentious and simply self-descriptive). I just don't think it needs an article. Give it an external link in the Quake II or Doom 3 article, and any others which it has been modded for (which seems to be Quake IV?). FrozenPurpleCube 17:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a point of clarification, WP:V does explicitly say "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Wickethewok 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That goes more to weighing notability than determining verifiability, and you'll note that lower down in the article, there is a bit about self-published sources being acceptable. The policy itself is defined in the three points at the top of the article, not the discussion below, and it only requires reliable sources. Sometimes the most reliable source is the people who made it. Doesn't matter in this case though, at most I'd say it's an EL candidate, maybe a section in another article, but not one itself. FrozenPurpleCube 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Recury 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. The policy WP:V requires that information be verifiable; it does not require that sources be in the article itself. In this case, basic details about the mod can be sourced to the mod's web site. They also have coverage by a third party in PC Zone magazine (visible on the website). If an article is lacking sources, AFD is not the right place—tag it for cleanup or fix it. Only if there is no reasonable possibility that sources exist (i.e., it is unverifiable) is that a criterion for deletion. That said, this mod doesn't appear to be finished and doesn't seem to be particularly notable, so I do think it is unencyclopedic on those grounds. — brighterorange (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - video game mods are not generally notable, and this does not seem to be any extraordinary case. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:42, 14 November
2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I posted this in response for Wickethewok for deleting everything ever mentioned about me throughout Wikipedia in a whole, which all is notable and proven with sources, though I've noticed before the deletion of such pages, someone editing the page deleting the sources, saying that even those weren't viable sources.

I am the creator of the Quake II: Lost Marine project and it has been brought to my attention your request for deletion. As well as all other references to me within Wikipedia that users have created. I share a network with 15 other people which some have created and edited these articles about me and my professional career.

It doesn't make sense after reading your discussions with other admins that you say the articles you had deleted have no notability or you can't find any resources. I believe you to be in the wrong by doing this, and I do feel this has been a personal attack. Articles that I'm aware of that you had deleted.

Thearrel 'Kiltron' McKinney Quake II: Lost Marine The Mean Arena Futrix Studios (not 100% sure on that)

As well as any links to any other mentions of me or my works within other Wikipedia articles. You aren't doing very thorough research to request the deletion of information about other professionals and their careers. For example, Quake II: Lost Marine is a mod for DOOM 3 (currently) and not for Quake 4. What research tells you this mod is available for Quake 4? It isn't, it's only available for DOOM 3 and is being ported to Quake 4. So the removal of the link to the mod or article from the DOOM 3 article and relisted in the Quake 4 article is invalid on your part. I could understand maybe 1 or 2 things being removed for your lack of research, but to remove me completely from Wikipedia as a whole is no doubt vendictive, intentional, and a personal attack. Especially when every instance mentioned and all articles are valid articles that all have notability and all sources can be sited. Type any one of those into Google and you're guaranteed to have them at the top of the list. The articles were 100% accurate and true and valid. You're not doing a very professional nor thorough job editing Wikipedia when it's obvious you aren't doing the right research. Do you even know my professional history or the companies I've worked with, or for or the games I have worked on? Probably not, so you felt it necessary to delete everything about me mentioned. Or there is another motive which I'll be glad to look into. Thanks.

  • Delete after exploring the article and the web this seems to be NN. For those who want the article to remain - DO NOT get drawn into arguments here but provide evidence of it's notability WITHIN the article. That would stop the AFD. --Charlesknight 17:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also: google test. RunedChozo 18:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note my objection to this method, as detailed above. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most mods are not sufficiently notable to merit an article, and this one is not an exception. I do not view bulk Google results as an accepatable substitute for reliable sources. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love how you deletionists refuse to do even the modicum of checking the magazines the mod has been profiled in (MAGAZINES, which do NOT NORMALLY PROFILE MODS) out of your zeal to delete the entirety of Wikipedia. RunedChozo 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, many gaming magazines run various material on mods, as I have seen through past AFDs. Wickethewok 22:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a deletionist; I just don't think this mod is notable. Given the relative unimportance of mods in the general scheme of things, I look for either widespread coverage in the industry, or crossover to non-industry sources. This article has one industry source listed, and when I went to their site, I wasn't able to find any mention of the mod in question. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Article Why is there no notability? I'm not understanding this? It's plastered all over the internet this mod is. It has it's own site, it's been featured on major gaming news sites, it's been in several issues of PC ZONE Magazine and published on the DVD's etc. It was at QuakeCon in 2005 and it's been well perceived by the DOOM 3 community and it's widely known. For one person to come by and say, well I'm deleting it cause I don't feel it's notable is pure rubbish. If you're going to delete this article you might as well go the long hall and delete all of DOOM 3's mod articles. As well as other mod's for other games I see on Wikipedia that aren't even actually released and were flat out canceled. Those are the things you should be deleting. Speaking of industry sources, how can someone say they can't find anything on the website? That's bull as well and when there were sources cited in this article including the PC ZONE issues and articles themselves to proof these, some idiot deleted those as well thus making no viable magazine sources. The mod has had widespread coverage. What more can be proven? It's not on your HDD so it don't belong on Wikipedia? Personal vendetta? What? Wikipedia hire some new admins that do real research and base articles on real research not on what that individual just feels belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.87.172 (talk • contribs)
  • If there are articles on other mods that you would like to nominate for deletion, we'll be glad to evaluate those as well. If they're of the same type as this one, you'd be doing us a valuable service by pointing them out. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, forget it. Wikipedia's AFD is just being run by deletionist vandals who don't know shit on the subject but can't be bothered to do any research. RunedChozo 15:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want this article saved from deletion, by all means seek out these references and add them to the article. Remember, the burden of proof is on the article's editors, not on the nominator or those not editing it. And please keep WP:NPA in mind. GarrettTalk 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof was added when the article was created from the start but some deletionist said the proven sources weren't valid and removed them way back. Basically saying PC ZONE and such articles did not exist nor does the person who created the mod. If the person that created the mod does not exist then how is it they can be found everywhere on the net and their name is tacked onto it as it's creator? Plus the articles are right there on the mod's website. Anyone who decides to delete article ever take the time to email someone and ask them personally about it? That may help a lot. Pure craziness.
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/Quake_II:_Lost_Marine&oldid=1070385121"