Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neotokyo

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 of the debate was delete. Sorry, socks! Proto///type 15:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Neotokyo

Reads like a user's manual; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. No claims of notability. Morgan Wick 03:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not a notable or official game mod for Half-Life 2. --Starionwolf 03:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Hetar 03:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but remove all but the first paragraph. WP:NOT crystal ball or how-to manual. But, if consensus is for delete, I will go along with that. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 04:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Welcome - to Wikipedia. I for one am fine with deleting all unofficial game mods that don't have any sort of particular notability about them. Wickethewok 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Question For future reference, it would be fantastic if you define exactly how much notability a mod requires to be admitted, and what the guidelines are for determining this "notability." --StukaAce 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • IMO - Probably some proof of substantial usage or press coverage is always good, too. Wickethewok 20:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Question And how would "substantial" be defined? --StukaAce 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentUser has 5 edits, 4 here and 1 on Neotokyo.--Andeh 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Neotokyo was recently featured in Computer Gaming World in a full page article (link to a scan http://www.deviantart.com/view/29180173/), and has been in numerous other computer gaming magazines (both in print and on cover discs) in the past (PC Gamer UK, PC Zone etc). NitenMuratta 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would ask that many of the first replies be considered null in the face of very heavy article revision. Also, it seems that a crusade against game mods have cropped up in the past few days. I think that, if these articles are not welcome on the basis of notability (Neotokyo, as noted by NitenMuratta, has been featured in magazines, and on many (if not all) mod-related websites) there should be a strict notice concerning game mods or other 'in the works' projects (including those who have released public works before). Applying that same concept outside of gaming would cut down on indie bands who have only released EPs and are not signed, obscure artists whose paintings have never been featured prominently at official institutions, and many other similar circumstances This does not make it noteable outside the field of "gamers", but, as comparison neither are many articles on wikipedia because many people all over the world have varying interests (reference Bowen Bridge). There are literally thousands of articles like that which are important only to the people that are concerned with them. I have no interest in such things (bridges), and would consider them AfD worthy. However, a bridge enthusiast may think otherwise. It is out of respect for other people's interests that I find them to be an integral part of Wikipedia's character. The beauty I find in Wikipedia is that it has a little bit about everything...I'd like to think it would stay that way, even concerning the hobby of gaming and mods. Xiliquiern 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be folly to consider the first replies null. I, for one, stand by my vote. GassyGuy 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • As do I. I try not to judge based on what the article is at the time, but whether the subject itself is notable. Thus, any content changes are not entirely relevant to my vote. Wickethewok 03:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The "very heavy article revision" appears to be the addition of more mods "under development". As additional vaporware does not add to notability of the original vaporware, my recommendation remains the same. Tychocat 07:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- per Xiliquiern Noob cannon lol 22:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Xiliquiern brings up an excellent point. --IU2002 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree as well. -Bizarro1
  • Delete nn game, speculative development mentioned, advertisement for upcoming reputed releases. Tychocat 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I would argue that an official wikipedia banner made especially for games in development would mean that games in development are acceptable material for wikipedia (view the banner below the AfD on the Neotokyo page as reference...or Red Steel, Spore (video game), or Duke Nukem Forever a game that has been in development for almost 10 years. This post was made purely for informational purposes only. Advertisement is out of the question as the material is presented in an unbiased and unforceful manner. Any advertisement is done through a plethora of websites devoted to just that - mod news sites, and gaming magazines. Neotokyo has used both. Xiliquiern 22:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
      • About the first sentence: There's a difference between a brand-new game from a notable company that has been anticipated by the entire gaming community, like the three you linked to, and an unofficial mod by a bunch of friends who got together and decided to hype up and release a mod for a very moddable game. I'm not saying the latter is completely the case for this game, but it's somewhere. Morgan Wick 02:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It seems to have had a decent amount of media coverage, and its presence isn't objectionable. Awa64 00:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable and wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Auger Martel 14:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Crystal ballism doesn't apply as this is already available for Unreal Tournament 2004. It seems to be notable within that community. Ace of Sevens 14:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per Xiliquiern's statements. Mod's are as much of games as commercial games. statements such as "There's a difference between a brand-new game from a notable company...and an unofficial mod by a bunch of friends who got together and decided to hype up and release a mod for a very moddable game" are unsupported. Just because a game is not produced by a large company provided with a large budget doesn't make it different from anything else. Mods are in line with open source software such as unix, and would you even consider unix to be unfit for wikipedia just becasue it is availible at no charge? And if you had any background, or even a smigion of knowledge on the status of current modification communities you would know that a bunch of friends in a garage died many years ago. to get any noteriety a modification must be built by either many skilled people, or one highly trained person. I give you black mesa and Minerva:metastasis as examples. Black mesa consists of a world wide team of skilled users. Metastasis consists of a single person with a talent for story writing and level design. Both have recived more praise and media then a fair amount of published games. Would you think of them as less then games you have to pay for? M_Gargantua 21:23, 19 June 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.255.222 (talk • contribs)
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.