Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (3rd 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhye's and Fall of Civilization

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains primary sources. There is potential for an article about Mods in the Civilization series in general, but as it stands, this particular mod doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself. Coin945 (talk) 04:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if it was mentioned in reviews, the mentions don't appear to be significant. Not sure how this passed AfD before._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would it be possible to merge this article with Civilisation IV?Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a major expansion of the Civilization IV franchise, almost qualifying as an independent game unto itself. Recipient of numerous computer software awards and also inspired a sequel with the new Civilization VI. Also heavily referenced and a long standing article for several years. -O.R.^Comms 03:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Only to note, there's nothing I have seen that confirms Civ VI's "Rise and Fall" inspired by this. The name might seem familiar, but "rise and fall of civilizations" pre-dates "Rhys" easily. Let's not assume that's a reason to keep this. --Masem (t) 23:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't really see how an article can be listed twice, especially with one of them ending with WP:SNOW, and simply be listed again, without anything changing. It's clearly been at least mentioned in a lot of publications, and a few are paper, which we have to take as read, as good faith. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It meets all the criteria for inclusion. Nomination is bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -O.R.^Comms 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD, and the nominator doesn't introduce any new arguments. It received non-trivial coverage in a large number of reviews of the base game, as well as a few dedicated reviews of the mod, see this page. – Joe (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per before; however there is a decent argument to merge to a wider page on Civ4 mods. There's clearly link-rot on reviews, but I'm convinced some do exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Civilization IV#Mods. I can only find RS that mention the mod once or twice but in a very trivial way that they aren't really talking about the mods. The only one that gives more depth is the IGN preview, which talks about Civ 4 mods instead of this specific mod. The "papers" or the links provided above are focused on Beyond the Sword instead, and not all are reliable. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: Have you looked at the sources listed here, namely the full-page reviews of the mod (not Beyond the Sword) in Giochi per il mio computer and Cyberstratège [fr]? – Joe (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this has more than enough coverage to warrant its own article. Also merging it back into the main Civ IV article, under the "mods" section, would make that article excessively long. That in fact was why this article was originally created, to provide a stand alone space for the material about this expansion. -O.R.^Comms 19:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is like, 2 reliable sources covering the game and having trivial mentions by some others. That is far from sufficient. It definitely does not meet the requirement that a subject must receive "significant coverage" by RS per WP:GNG. WP:GNG also talks about that if there is a lack of multiple sources, then maybe the parent article is the better place to mention all these information. Given that the entire article was based on primary sources, there was nothing valuable to merge. (PS: The 2 magazines have not been discussed by the WP:VG community regarding their reliability as well) AdrianGamer (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that two full length reviews plus lesser coverage in a dozen plus other reliable is more than enough significant coverage, but that's a judgement call. It's simply factually inaccurate to say there no significant coverage, though. The article could use some trimming, but there's nothing ipso facto wrong with using primary sources, and it's not a reason for deletion. Also, sources don't have to be vetted by a WikiProject before we consider them reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough reviews to justify a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 4 February 2018 (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.