Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technic Pack

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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technic Pack[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Technic Pack" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Fails WP:GNG -- no multiple, reliable, independent sources with significant topic's coverage. While popular with let's plays and known in Minecraft's modding community, the mod pack has not received any press coverage that I can find from either specialized VG sources or generic googling. (I should note I wouldn't consider PC Gamer article significant coverage, as it is basically a beginner's WP:HOWTO guide. There are 2 paragraphs of generic promotionally sounding description and has no critical evaluation.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who wrote the article. I wrote it quite quickly so the sources may not be the best. It's strange that I could not find any better information regarding Technic apart from wikis and forums. The pack I think is a major part of the Minecraft modding community so I thought it might be best to contribute an article. I understand that the article meets criteria for deletion, however. Given the pack's popularity, I'm surprised not much coverage from independent sources is given. Perhaps, if the pack receives press coverage in the future the article could be re-written. User:elemented9 21:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article clearly doesn't meet GNG criteria, but if anyone is interested in an alternative, I do think there is enough material to create a Minecraft mods page and merge some of this article's sourced content into it. While not notable alone, the Minecraft modding community and releases appear to be significant enough (from cursory searches) to stand as their own article with ample independent sources. Food for thought. czar · · 19:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A page that includes the entire modding community in General is probably more appropriate and meets notability guidelines. I've archived the content of the article here and I may get started on such a page if I can find references and sources to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. If anyone is interested I can contact you when the page is up, unless someone else plans to start the article themselves. Element₂. _TALK 20:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me updated if you do. Also post a message to WT:VG to let other people know—it's a large topic. czar · · 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On further consideration of the article I wrote, it does fail to meet notability guidelines regardless of the pack's popularity. A page for Minecraft modding as Czar mentioned is probably more appropriate. Element₂. _TALK

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.