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)

passed afd

In fact, it passed AfD -- and by a SNOW keep, for that matter, and as recently as 21 Feb 2010. . Once an article has passed afd, it can not be nominated for speedy on the same grounds. Given the discussion there, I think it would be very unlikely that a second AfD would delete it. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a "Snow Keep"? I couldnt figure that one that. -OberRanks (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The snowball test: [4] Mephistophelian (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Links please, show me proof.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The AFD is linked at the top of the page. The AFD keep vote passed and the effort to makr it for speedy delete was deemed unsupported. Please do not continuously add the speedy delete template to the article after its already been determined not eligible for speedy delete and a keep vote passed. -OberRanks (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was closed because no argument for deletion was given in the nomination. I agree there is no justification for a speedy deletion at all. But to justify a seperate article, I'd like to see some significant coverage of this that is not included as part of a Civ IV review. Marasmusine (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Whilst there are third party references, how many of them are for this mod alone, as opposed to part of a Civ 4 review? There is the question of whether this should be merged with the Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword article. Mdwh (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mercenaries

I think we should add a section on the mercenary-hiring mechanic. It is a quite important part of the mod,and should probably have its own section. Willbat (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:BEBOLD, I recommend you just do it. IdiotsOpposite (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)