Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeWorlds

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. If material from the article would be useful in other articles, I can provide a copy of the deleted article for cannibalization. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FreeWorlds

FreeWorlds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article about a mod. -- i.e. self-published vanity fiction -- with no assertion of notability and no reliable sources. EEMeltonIV 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the parts that are not unsalvageable original research to Freelancer. Delete the rest. —gorgan_almighty 10:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant merge/delete per gorgan_almighty; personally I like articles about the more popular mods, and this is a pretty good article. Notability (from a quick google search) may not be too hard to establish, but sourcing is a serious issue particularly given the length of the article. EyeSerene^TALK 10:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• If you can provide reliable secondary sources to assert notability, then it may be better as a stub rather than a merge. I searched but couldn't find any. —gorgan_almighty 11:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• On a more thorough search, neither can I (outside of blogs and forums). This is clearly not enough for WP:ATT. Although I'm personally sympathetic to the inherent difficulties that prevent this sort of article from ever clearing the notability bar, those are the policies we have to work to.... oh well ;) EyeSerene^TALK 12:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as nn modcruft. Eusebeus 16:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as non-notable WP:FANCRUFT. --Gavin Collins 10:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable mod. Itake 16:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep In the present gaming climate anything contributing to the health of the space sim form is noteworthy, and a fully realized Star Wars mod is innately notable. The usual source tests cannot be applied to mods because traditional press is harmful to mod communities. If there's a sound reason to remove the article it's Wikipedia's potential for pushing grey-area stuff over the threshold into lawyer country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einexile (talk • contribs) 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question - If it is so noteworthy, where are the third-party sources covering such a noteworthy project? Your rationale for keeping the content is itself original research. --EEMeltonIV 22:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and there are no secondary sources or independant sources providing information Childzy ¤ Talk 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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.