Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Revolution

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. "The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely." With that advice in mind, the concensus is very clearly to delete. kingboyk 07:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Revolution

  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}}

A non-notable mod that's still being created, not notable outside of creators. Also confusable with Nintendo Revolution. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs.--PatCheng 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - While it's still being created, and not necessarily notable until release, as many mods of otherwise notable scope go unfinished and unreleased, I'd say this mod's scope would definitely qualify it as notable if it was actually completed. Furthermore, some of the nomination's comments seem strange to me - some quick research shows that Project Revolution (apparently founded in 2003) predates the Nintendo Revolution (unveiled in 2005). Furthermore, this material doesn't really belong on GameFAQs, not being a commercial game nor a guide to a game, and I was not aware that similarities in name were a reason for an AfD. -- Imban 01:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - if it becomes big after being released, then it'll merit an article. Until then, not so much -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Warcruft mod. Royboycrashfan 02:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - ""Project Revolution" Starcraft" returns many relevant results, in multiple langauges. Being not released yet, it is a slightly week keep, but is encylopedia worthy nonetheless.MadCow257 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, specifically the statement about game pre-release advertising. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, however, allow re-make of article after the project is released, and if it becomes particularly notable(especially if it shows up in a magazine article)--Vercalos 06:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Article author here. To the person who mentioned magazine articles, Project Revolution has already been in several of them, most notably twice in "Computer Gaming World". However, please understand that these articles cannot be pasted or linked to for proof due to copyright reasons. I no longer work for Project Revolution, and if this article gets deleted it will not likely return unless someone else does it. - Siloh
    • Adding a link as a reference is not a copyright violation. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • In that case, just google for "Project Revolution" "Computer Gaming World" (as one phrase, with the quotes). There are far too many links to list here. - Siloh
        • Which is exactly what people with no real evidence tend to say — they don't need to prove anything. But an argument without cited evidence is just an opinion. Don't expect other people to make your case for you. Show us one or two links you think are representative. Expect people to judge them by the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, though. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article keeps repeating that this mod will do something and should not have a certain effect. Also contains rumors. Pagrashtak 16:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Siloh. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cleaned it up (removing a lot of unsourced material). No vote since it's really borderline for me. Fagstein 20:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Jim62sch 20:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am Cooler one of the coders for the Project. We have been in gaming magazines two times as Siloh said. I would have to disagree with the fact that this project is not well known. We have over 1700 fan base registered users on the site alone. As well as our parent site Warcraft 3 Campaigns the leader of the wc3 mod community who has over 10,000 active members we are considered the largest and most famous of wc3 mods to date. We are also have an exclusive deal which http://www.sclegacy.com/ one of the largest SC fan sites who also owns the famous blizzforums who has over 28,000 users and our mod is constantly mistaken by them and the web for starcraft 2. This is one of the main reasons for this article to stop confusion that a starcraft 2 is in production by blizzard. If I am not mistaken this one reasons why wikipedia exists to stop information confusion on the subject if this articles is removed at least put line in the SC one that says and any screen shots of sc2 are more then likely that of this wc3 total conversion.Also how could the article have rumors in it when it comes from the staff who is creating it. So all information is as accurate as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cooler2 (talk • contribs) .
    • Just to clarify my rumor comment, this was present in the version at the time of my vote: It is rumoured that Blizzard Entertainment will attempt to shut down the project should it be completed. Pagrashtak 13:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, obvious crystal ball, IMHO. Sandstein 10:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, obvious Wikipedia is not this, IMHO. Afz902k 10:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Uhh, doesn't that mean delete? Note to closing admin: This user's only contributions are to this AfD. Fagstein 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I found this article extremely useful - isn't that what wikipedia is for? There is a lot of information here that I'm glad for, and if the mod does get released it will be extremely popular. -- User:Anonymous 11:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.214.214.227 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep If anyone actually bothered to do an in-depth research about PR, they would find that it won second place on Mod DB awards, a huge mod site, http://features.moddb.com/111/?fpage=15 PR won against fierce competition and only lost the first place to a mod who benefited from Half-Life's enormous popularity. And if that is not enough to guarantee that PR will be a huge success when released, then consider that PR is a TOTAL conversion, one that is intended to make StraCraft 3D that is much like the much-anticipated StarCraft 2. PR also benefits from StarCraft's popularity. PR is seeking multiple large sites to mirror it when released, proving that the staff has reason to expect mass downloading. I believe that a person qualified to vote here should at least know just how anticipated StarCraft 2 is and what PR represents to the SC fanbase. I am CNX, a PR forum user.Elenalkarnur 21:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • User's only edits are for this AFD. Pagrashtak 01:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into a list of such mods. Stifle 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I would just like to note that we are not forwarding people to this site, per "suggestion" of the banner at the top. Most people who have come here have noticed it on their own. Secondly, the fact that you continue to seemingly weigh the worth of a person's opinion on their contributes to Wikipedia shows that we don't really need our article here anyway, as this isn't exactly the mindset that I had imagined to be behind Wikipedia in general - I change my opinion to delete. Siloh
    • Comment - please see WP:SOCK for an explanation of why we're so suspicious of new wikipedians voting in AfDs. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no refs. Melchoir 06:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Heres a link for evidence (Computer Gaming World) : http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdcgw/is_200602/ai_n16013903 . -- User:Anonymous
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.