Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desert Combat Extended (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Combat Extended

Fails WP:V, not one source is given in the article and none could be found. Notability: DCX a mod of a mod, it hasn't received any press and having a "feature" before another mod does not make it notable. This article has already been put up for deletion once but no good reason were given and most votes were annons and new accounts. I think it should be deleted or merged to Desert Combat if it is rewritten as the current page is utter trash. BJ^Talk 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has previously been on AfD, view the past one here. Mathmo ^Talk 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- It's too ugly to be merged. MRoberts <> 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (-ish), the article does at least make a claim to notability. (certainly the parts near the end of it). There are a lot of google results, which means I'm kind of struggling to find them easily. So for now I'm unfortunately just going to go with my gut feeling that they exist. Meh, I know. Kinda weak reasoning. Mathmo ^Talk 10:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 19,200 for "Desert Combat Extended", 696,000 for "Desert Combat" -Extended. BJ^Talk 15:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Naturally there would be significantly less, it is a mod of it. Mathmo ^Talk 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also the first 3 pages of google results are download sites and this article. BJ^Talk 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forgotten Hope (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve of Destruction (game mod), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic Conquest and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlefield Pirates. All are more notable BF1942 mods, all had their articles deleted. BJ^Talk 15:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoa, I'm shocked they were deleted. It more indicates something is wrong with wikipedia, besides just because a page does or doesn't exist doesn't mean another page should or shouldn't exist. Anyway, I'm only slightly leaning towards keeping this page but the others I'd have strongly supported. Mathmo ^Talk 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Salty Dogs Productions (http://www.saltydogsproductions.com/projects.php) is the official owner of Desert Combat Extended. all facts in the article are verified since they come from the original programmer himself. --Zeuser 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again you must cite 3rd party sourced, not yourself. BJ^Talk
    - Did you bother investigating? Salty Dogs Productions is not myself. Any why do you insist on getting 3rd party info when the only person that actually knows everything is me? So what's more important for wikipedia? Neutral and erroneous information from a 3rd party or getting the right info straight from the horses mouth? Wikipedia is really starting to border on the edge of stupidity. --Zeuser 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is why I feel this article should be deleted, if no 3rd party sources exists we can't verify the information and it proves not enough people care thus is it a non notable topic. BJ^Talk 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What classes as a 3rd party source? As a lot of people could verify this information, i am a big fan and could be a 3rd party source, there is also 3 clans who could vouch for this, Zeuser is the creator and founder of DCX. DCX is mentioned on alot of sites. DCX has had over 100 unique players playing in the last week, this shows it is popular(source http://bftracks.net ) I feel that this article should be kept as it provides good informative information, from a reliable source. Surely be deleting this it is contradicting the point of wikipedia to provide a large free open source knowledge base designed to inform the global population and communities?? - dcx_badass —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.247.132 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - A reliable 3rd party website, news publication or magazine would be a good source, you would not be. 100 people playing a game in a week is hardly popular and I'm not even arguing that it's not. BJ^Talk 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come on people... common sense! We do not have or need articles for every single mod for every single game out there. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This information belongs on the Salty Dog Productions website rather than here. The requirement of independent third party sources is critical to Wikipedia as a way to ensure that information is accurate and unbiased and also to measure notability. If we don't have a mechanism to benchmark notability, then we become an indiscriminate collection of information.--Kubigula (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2007 (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.