Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F.E.A.R. Mods

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. Fails

List of F.E.A.R. Mods

List of F.E.A.R. Mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

List of game mods, does not appear to be encyclopedic, lacks sources, and is of very limited interest. See

Thousands people are aware of at least 1 of the mods, and most play them. I believe they are notable. And the list of half-life mods article doesn't cite any sources either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalex19 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Believing they're notable doesn't make them meet the
  verifiability guidelines, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Then what do you think will make this article more notable? As I said, many are aware of these. 24.47.112.61 (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the words "notability" and "verifiability" in my statement are links. If you follow those links, they might explain to you what are the standards to get an article on this site. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note my words "Thousands people are aware of at least 1 of the mods, and most play them." What doesn't seem notable to you might be to others. Paulalex19 (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter how many people it's notable to, or whether or not you or I deem it notable. It has to meet the definition of "notable" according to Wikipedia:Notability, no questions asked. And right now, you still aren't showing how this topic meets that guideline. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • For one (as already stated 3 or more times) thousands of people are aware of at least 1 of these mods. Then comes the fact that other lists for video game mods get to stay. What makes a list of F.E.A.R. mods an exception? Paulalex19 (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Did you even read
              other games have similar lists are not relevant to this conversation - we are talking about this list only. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]

• Note: This debate has been added to the
  list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Please find some sources. I am sure there are some, but you would know better than I where to look. (As for the
  same standards.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I think it is high time to support some mods. Unlike games released by companies which has lot of sources they get immediate attention and mods released by fans does not get that much of the press. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're suggesting we abandon this site's policies on
    notability just because these mods don't meet them? Sorry, not going to happen. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • So much for a source of information. Many things that aren't well noticed end up being somewhere (usually books, TV, internet) and eventually become notable. So having an article about mods might not only just be a source of reference, but also boost the notability. After all, other fan made mods lists for Half-life or other games get to stay. Why not F.E.A.R.'s? Paulalex19 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and
  Tally-ho! 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete in that we do not cover independent works (both full releases and modifications) unless they have been sourced in reliable secondary sources. There is FEAR modding, yes, and that should be covered to as much as the sources provided in the main FEAR article, but providing a list like this not only fails notability. This argument should be applied to any other "list of mod" or specific mod articles that cannot be shown to be notable. Again the key point: the game is modable and people have modded it, but exactly the types of mods need not be explained unless they themselves are notable. --MASEM 04:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would support an article that acted as a central article for articles on the mods, but those mods would have to be far more notable than what is already here. Things like
  PVKII and other total conversion mods can usually make a decent case for notability (even though most mod articles are currently a mess), but a bunch of mods like this are not notable and should not be here. -- Sabre (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: When you say, "not notable" or "of little interest" you are speaking for yourself. You can't decide what other people may or may not find notable. What isn't notable to you might be for others. Paulalex19 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please understand that when most editors talk about notability, they mean
    Wikipedia's definition, which requires sufficient interest to have merited coverage in secondary sources. --MASEM 23:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Delete - Doesn't meet standards for notability on wikipedia. Would probably be a magnet for spam and advertising of various mods, too. Randomran (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable outside of the FEAR modding community. Such a small list could easily be turned into prose and put on the main FEAR page. A separate list is unnecessary. Drewcifer (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm O.K. with merging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalex19 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and numerous comments above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note
    Tally-ho! 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Been there, done that. The nominator makes a perfectly fine argument for deletion. You're welcome to disagree. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (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.