Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frag-Ops (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 delete. Moreschi ^Talk 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag-Ops[edit]

This article was previously deleted due to the obvious consensus that the article lacked any secondary sources (see here. The article was rewritten and moved back into the article space; however, it still only uses primary sources (archived versions of the game's website). Googling for sources only brings up the usual Fileplanet and other directory listings, which are not independent reliable sources. Delete for lack of independent reliable sources. Wickethewok 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, mod was retail released on the UT2004 Editor's Choise Edition. Contest entries in Epic's contest are also clear. Mentionnings from Developers and Publishers can be found across the internet.

Delete: as failing WP:NN, WP:WEB and WP:V. Just another game mod. RGTraynor 18:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGTraynor's comment. It's way of WP:V and is not notable. Adrian M. H. 16:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Neil ╦ 10:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you had actually read the current article, you'd see that more than primary sources were used. Your state that it needs independent reliable sources, and that is why there's an entire section titled News articles (by date). It is also generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Wickethewok this is the second time you've put this article up for deletion, and yours reasons this time seem more specious than the last. --Basique 10:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are those links reliable independent sources? Neil ╦ 11:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any myself. There isn't a single source from either mainstream media (not expected in any event) or from well-known gaming industry publications which would at least have a modest rep for fact-checking. I'm also not enthusiastic about the presumption that just because we're not swallowing these sources as reliable, we must not have read the article. RGTraynor 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent news sources were asked for and provided along wiith dates, Beyond Unreal is one of the three big Unreal sites, Boomtown isn't small, and are you saying that UGO isn't notable? Or that Epic's own Unreal Tournament website listing Frag Ops is not? In fact quite a lot of data has been provided. No one asked you to swallow anything Traynor but when you vote to delete something, make sure you at least understand the topic you are sitting in judgement of. Because someone who did would have immediately recognized Beyond Unreal, that is of course why it's the topmost link. Going back quite a ways in the contribution histories of most of the Delete voters, I do not see any gaming articles contributed to or edited, I just see deletions and admin work. The question is if you only posses a superficial understanding of a topic, how can you effectively determine its notability? --Basique 17:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing a link to the Frag.Ops page was posted on their forums on June 8th at 12:46 PM, and then at 18:04 PM on June 8th Wickethewok added (afdx) to an article that has been up since March 21st, in fact it is the very first action he takes that day. So if he just rediscovered the article on June 8th, where exactly did he rediscover it? --Basique 17:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, we're judging its verifiability. Reliable sources must be independent. Unreal's own websites don't qualify. RGTraynor 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what Basique is accusing me of, but the thing that prompted me to nominate it was that someone edited it on June 8 popping it to the top of my watchlist. I still had this watchlisted still from when it was deleted a few months ago and hadn't realized until then that it was back in the article space. I saw that the reasons it was deleted last time had not been addressed, as the "news articles" aren't reliable or independent (also, at least one is a press release). Wickethewok 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was watchlisted since the last time it would have also popped up on March 21st. Those news articles are from reliable independent sources. In fact all of you have edited articles a lot more dubious than this and have not nominated them for deletion, I know this because I've gone through all your contributions. This is a solid article I built it that way, and I put in the references to back that up. So what I think now is that I need to bring this issue to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. --Basique 19:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you find other articles that are impossible to source/are junk/etc, feel free to nominate those for deletion, but that doesn't really have to do with this AFD. This AFD is already listed at WP:CVG#Deletion, so I assume that Wikiproject CVG already knows. FYI, since the article was in your userspace until March 30, my watchlist wouldn't have shown any of the edits made before you moved it to the deleted article's location. Wickethewok 20:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq 17:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Basique. IP198 14:40, 15 June 2007 (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.