Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trenches

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. The arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments to have this article kept. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Trenches[edit]

No reliable third party sources for this game mod, meaning it quite definitely fails WP:V#Burden_of_evidence and WP:RS. Wickethewok 14:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete game mods and hacks are usually not notable, and the article certainly gives no indication that this one is any exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Wickethewok is being extraordinarily obtuse - he knows fine well that this mod is one of only a handful of mods advertised through steampowered.com, the homepage of Valve Corporation, who are one of the biggest names in games development (Half-Life?), and therefore easily passes the verifiability test. Whether that's enough to make this mod notable is another matter --Aim Here 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to mention that the listings on Steampowered contain little more than a couple sentence summary and links to the mod's website. While clearly it shows existence, almost all information in the article remains unverifiable without original research. I certainly question its notability as well. Wickethewok 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is certainly a lack of eveidence to support any possible notability claim. (One interview on Planet Half-Life was all I found.) The Kinslayer 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This mod is not notable, and will not be notable. I've been playing it for a year and it's almost dead as it is. It's nearly a year late for it next (and final) release. It looks likely they wont even make that. There are two servers which no-one plays on. There are more reasons, but these are most relevent to wiki. This was too harsh, and unfair, but I still stand by the original vote. The Kinslayer 16:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm glad you struck that out; there are fallacies both in the statement here and in edits you have made to the article in the past that are completely untrue: There was never a release date posted, and it has been said on numerous occasions (as well on the main page) that this was the case. Nor are you in the position to decide the status of game, as someone outside the creative and development process, your opinion is merely speculation. Your move for deletion no-doubt came off as spiteful and completely misjudged based on your comment, but as to Wikipedia policy I agree with the deletion. Perhaps in the future you will not let your personal emotions get in the way of your decision, as correct or false as it may be? --Termynuss 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Also fail the criteria wickethewok stated. On top of all this, it also reads more like a game guide/advertisement than an encyclopedia article. The Kinslayer 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree - As Developer sitting directly at the source of this mod i can assure you there will be a release. Plus we have never mentioned any release date tending to Winter 2005, which makes your comment implausible. As for the lack of Servers, the Team decided to decrease the PR-work until TT1.1 is released, i'm pretty sure there will be more server once the new version is out. Right now I'm in contact with two server owners who assured me to provide TT1.1 Servers. That no-one plays this mod is pure speculation or do you check the servers 24/7 for players? Community members often report crowded servers on week-ends.

The Trenches is not just a "mod" or "hack" it's a Total Conversion. It has nothing in common with the original Black Mesa Half-Life 1 except the GoldSRC Engine on which both games The Trenches & Half-Life 1 are based on. Nearly every Half-Life related content (textures, sounds, maps, models, sprites) is deleted. The Trenches is mostly based on it's own Models, Textures, Sounds, Sprites just like every other Total Conversion Mod----Hawk-- 17:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
::Comment As one of the Developers, you would naturally oppose the deletion of this article. The same goes for JJ45. Your reply sounds like it would be more suited to a message board to answer questions as to whether the mod is folding, as it contains absolutely nothing to justify having it's own article on Wikipedia, and merely reads like a summary of the game on ModDB or similar sites. The Kinslayer 15:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)The Kinslayer 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This mod had a sizable following when it was released, and though it's not as popular now as it once was, people still play. Development work is still ongoing for the next release. Koblentz 03:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Fans or not, as wickethewok says, the article quite clearly fails WP:V#Burden_of_evidence and WP:RS.
    • Additionally WP:Notability states 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.' as well as several other points. The Kinslayer 10:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if you have checked the external sources well enough, but...if an article in the PC Gamer (a international prestigious Gaming Magazine) isn't enough to serve as reliable source for a GAME i wouldn't know why any Game has any right to exist at wikipedia. (link to a scanned picture of the Pc Gamer including the Preview: http://moddb.com/images/cache/mods/54/543/gallery/water_23358.jpg )----Hawk-- 13:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's perfectly acceptable, but it doesn't do a hell of a lot of good if it hasn't been included in the article does it? As I said previously, the article as it is now fails policies and guidelines. All I see in the links are 5 non-reliable sources. I didn't check the sources due to WP:V#Burden of evidence.The Kinslayer 13:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Mod or not, The Trenches is a very notable game that certainly deserves to have a Wikipedia article. It is also very likely for people to look for Wikipedia entries for TT. Deleting the article would be as ridiculous as deleting the Half-Life article. JJ45 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment An extreme exageration there. Don't kid yourself. The Kinslayer 14:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wickethewok - this should be kept as a mention in the List of Half-Life mods article and nothing more. --Film11 15:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the BoE according to the WP:V#Burden_of_evidence the HL Mods Natural Selection, The Specialists or Firearms should be nominated due to the lack of posted "noteable" sources, too. Explaination? Furthermore i really would like to know what you understand under a "reliable/noteable" source for a Pc Game? other than the PC GAMER Review i've already posted.----Hawk-- 16:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It's quite simple. I haven't looked at those articles, simple as that. This came up for deletion, so I checked it out, and guess what, it meets the requirements for deletion in my opinion. And I already said the PC Gamer article was a fine reliable source, but if it's not been added to the article, how is anyone supposed to know about it? You can't expect everyone to google The Trenches and PC Gamer just on the off chance there WAS a review. As wiki says, providing evidence of a source is up to the person wishing to include the source, not the person wishing to delete the article because there are no sources. The Kinslayer 17:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article!

i´m a big fan of tt, and there are many more who think like me too! so as you cansee tt isnt dead or something like that! its still alife with a big community, so pls keep the article! greetz hOMEr_jAy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.103.40 (talk • contribs)

    • Hmm, compelling arguement, but unfortunately 'I like it' is not a legitimate reason for keeping an article. The Kinslayer 17:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • actuallly the same is necessary for you..it seems like you have alot of anger against tt and what the article to be deleted, and also i just wanted to show, that tt still has a large community,greetz hOMEr_jAy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.103.40 (talk • contribs)
    • Actually (man people like using that word), if you look at the top, I didn't nominate this article for deletion, but since it has been nominated, I'm supporting the want to delete it. That's what AfD is for. The Kinslayer 17:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok i read your oppionion and i accept it (even if i can´t understand it), but the person who decides wether this wiki-entry is going to be deleted or not, may recognize that this mod (it´s a total-conversion with almost 100% new content, a big community and it´s even suppoerted by Valve!) is big and it wouldn´t make sense to delete it, greetz hOMEr_jAy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.158.103.40 (talk • contribs)
If you read this debate, you can see the reasons for the nomination are nothing to do with how big the community is. I mentioned the community, but it's not one of the reasons it was nominated. The Kinslayer 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the article was edited to address the stated problems with it, I'm sure wicket would drop the AfD. He's not unreasonable. I can't see why people have trouble understanding that the article as it is now does indeed warrant deletion. Yes I know about PC Gamer, but it's not doing much good if it's not been noted in the article. The Kinslayer 17:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As a developer of the mod itself, I actually support the deletion of the article. As it stands, the article is certainly not NPOV, contains a large amount of speculative info, provides weak source material, and makes use of weasel words. There are certainly notable features of The Trenches, but none of them are properly presented here; the article reads like a simple summary of the gameplay and specifically the segment of "Future of The Trenches" comes off as NPOV (as well as the PC Gamer UK citation). I'd advise our fans to not argue with the issue based on the simple fact you like the mod. Whether or not you like the mod is of no consequence here; the issue at hand is if the article itself is notable-- I don't believe it is. I don't necessarily agree with some of the reasons for deletion (NP:V), but there are other more important holes here. Trust me, as a dev I'd like to see our mod on this page, but the article leaves a lot to be desired. Until something better can be written in accordance with Wikipedia's policies, I support the move for deletion. Termynuss

Weak delete - From Wikipedia:Notability (software): The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.; However , mod or not, it is one of few World War I based computer games (Category:World War I computer and video games which makes it of interest. I encourage users who wish to see this kept to find any notable mentions as detailed above. Marasmusine 10:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact the PC Gamer thing mentioned by Hawk should count as one, if it can be integrated into the article. Marasmusine 10:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, the post above yours is a request from one of the Developers saying he believe the article should be deleted until such time they have enough information and sources to make a wiki worth article. The Kinslayer 10:34, 11 October 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/The_Trenches&oldid=1082349950"