Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mod DB
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
- 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 KEEP. TigerShark (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mod DB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find video game sources: "Mod DB" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
This article fails to establish its notability by introducing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All sources of this article are either from the subject itself (www.moddb.com), its parent company (DesuraNET Pty Ltd) or in one case a subsidiary website. Fleet Command (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep. I took a look for sources, but there isn't much for GNG. I see an intreview, another interviewand another and IndieDB and Desura[1][2] announcements. Their game of the year stuff [3][4][5] also attracts press. It's the biggest modding sharing community we have, so it's notable in real world terms. In Wikipedia terms, it sort of fails GNG with semi-primary interviews. But getting GDC interview does suggest notability. I'm sure there will be some printed sources too, but I don't have access to any. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References suffer from being primary sources, but its quite widely known. Will find some secondary sources in to put in. Rescendent (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Added some refs Rescendent (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. Well known <> notability. But I'll defer to those with greater expertise and interest in the field. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per recent improvements from outside sources. --Teancum (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should say I am surprised how AfDs can sometimes attract such competent people like Rescendent to make such good contributions that I myself am otherwise unable to do. Although some Wikipedians might want to see more reliable sources, it is enough for me to leave it alone. Nevertheless, this article will never become a Good Articled or Featured Article. Fleet Command (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never say never. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I should say I am surprised how AfDs can sometimes attract such competent people like Rescendent to make such good contributions that I myself am otherwise unable to do. Although some Wikipedians might want to see more reliable sources, it is enough for me to leave it alone. Nevertheless, this article will never become a Good Articled or Featured Article. Fleet Command (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2011 (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.