Talk:Rhye's and Fall of Civilization/Archive 1

Archive 1

Speedy Delete Protest

Very strongly protest a speedy delete. There is obviously quite a bit of information on the article that is not on the main Civ IV page, not the least of which is the screen-shot showing the historical tie-in of the game to real history. A merge might work, but its not really fair to simply delete the effort put into this out-of-hand. -OberRanks (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Warlords and Beyond the Sword are the only expansions to Civ4, this claims to be a user written mod, and therefore is also liable for deletion under CSD section A7 (something not-noteable from the internet) and WP:WEB.

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 04:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: The template up the top saying that this article was nominated for deletion and the result was keep has been removed as one person for keeping it is hardly a disscussion. The template was removed under WP:BALLS

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 04:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It was a valid keep vote, advertised on all the appropriate pages, voted on by two users, and closed by an administrator. You can attempt a deletion review on the appropriate pages if you wish. -OberRanks (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Article defence

(i) It is a user-created scenario that can be played with Civilization IV, Warlords or Beyond the Sword. Another, earlier, version was created for Civilization III. A boardgame version also exists.[1] Your previous attempt to delete this article was quite recent, scarcely two weeks ago. According to that discussion, it was kept on the basis that it had significant press coverage and was cited as one of the few reasons for buying Beyond the Sword, which it was packaged with.[2] It is notable as one of the few extremely popular and successful mods to be found in both Civ games. The relevant SD criteria: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This was established following your first attempt at deletion, and the article was subsequently kept.

(ii) The editor who tagged this for deletion implies that since the article is about a "user written mod," it is liable for deletion. In fact, there are a number of popular mods on Wikipedia: [3] Subsequently, the aforementioned reason for deletion is clearly mistaken. No valid reason has been provided on either occasion; the article should be kept.

(iii) It is also possible that this article should not have been tagged as an A7 to begin with: An article about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The article relates to software and a boardgame, not a website or web content.

I've already indicated why the subject of the article can be considered notable, so the non-criterial reasons for speedy deletion, I believe, do not apply.

If editors believe that the article can be improved or expanded, then it should not be tagged for deletion. Mephistophelian (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all the above points. There is also definitely room for expansion here. -OberRanks (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)