Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry

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 of the nomination was delete all. The arguments for deletion are grounded in policy, and the keep arguments don't appear to have anything but game-fan-ism behind them. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry

This and the following pages comprise a guide on how to play Command and Conquer. Around 20 of these pages have already been deleted (see here, here, here, here, here (group nom) and here - another previous group nom that I thought had cleared them all up, but then I found yet more). So this is a mass-nomination of the few that remain. Wikipedia is most emphatically NOT a how-to guide - this is stated specifically in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - and as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General's Challenge (C&CG), this should be deleted forthwith. This is basically an abuse of Wikipedia's free hosting to allow someone to have images on their GameFAQs guide. Closing admin, please also note the vast array of dubious 'fair use' screenshots that are attached to many of these pages - these will need to be deleted should the articles be deleted. Proto///type 11:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note - I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

• • Soviet Union (C&C: Red Alert)
  • Allies (C&C: Red Alert)
  • Command & Conquer Red Alert Vehicles
  • C&C Red Alert Aircraft
  • Command & Conquer Red Alert Naval Units
  • Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative
  • Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative
  • Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative
  • Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  • Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  • Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod
  • Structures of the Global Defense Initiative
  • Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod

Whew! That is all. Note there are other C&C-related subpages that are perhaps unencyclopaedic, but these are the game-guide ones. Proto///type 11:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. jaco♫plane 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as nominator. WP:NOT a game strategy guide. Proto///type 11:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Also, there is an invalid argument against deleting these arguments on some of their talk pages (such as Talk:Command & Conquer Red Alert Vehicles - the user here indicates that "if you delete this, delete these because they violate the same guidelines/policies", when in reality, most of them don't). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Ever so crufty, not a game guide, etc... Wickethewok 14:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I had the unenviable task of closing the last one. It was over 150 items of crufty cruft, counting all the lapsed-fair-use screenshots. Here's to Proto for taking on the crufty menace. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. These C&Ccruft articles seem endless in number. Oldelpaso 15:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or perhaps Transwiki to an appropriate strategywiki / wikia project where it can be appreciated - some good content, and the "how to" elements are limited and could be addressed. Ace of Risk 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I know its pointless, but I will vote keep one last time. PS: Proto, you have misslabeled these pages as "how to guides". The pages do not tell you how to do anything, they only describe units and structures in high detail. TomStar81 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a game guide. These belong on an appropiate game wiki. Ydam 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All These pages are very important to wikipedia and should not be deleted. They are not how to guides. There are not strategy guides. They are not game guides either. They do not give the reader one strategy. They do not tell you how to pass a mission in the game or how to use an unit effectivly. They simply tell the reader that a unit in the game exists and describe the units. These articles are also not gamecruft. Wikipedia defines gamecruft as "a selection of content that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans." These articles are not of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans but to almost everyone who has even heard of the C&C games.--Taida 21:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• And HOW are these articles of any importance to "almost everyone who has even heard of the C&C games"? --Calton | Talk 01:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• It gives them very useful information on the units and structures and gives them a brief history of the "Command and Conquer" series.--Taida 17:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• The former makes it a game guide and the latter is in the main article. Try again. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• How does it make it a game guide?--Taida 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• What else could this information possibly be used for? Proto///type 11:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --TorriTorri 21:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. –Dicty (T/C) 22:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all These don't even pretend to be encyclopedic. WP is not a guide for gaming, and these aspects are not important/notable enough to merit their own articles. GassyGuy 22:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all of them. They're not game guides at all. - Richardcavell 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Really? Some quotes picked out, more or less randomly from one of the pages: Tiberium Refineries process raw tiberium, turning it into credits that a player can use to purchase new units and structures. Without a refinery a player's economy will slowly deteriorate until all credits have been exhausted...The tiberium refinery is only capable of storing 2,000 tiberium credits, therefore Tiberium Silos are used to store any additional tiberium refined in the facility....Orca pads allow for the construction of Orca aircraft. Without Orca pads any Orca aircraft returning to a GDI base will be unable to rearm itself. Sounds like advice to a player to me; i.e., a game guide. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• There is a great part in Plato’s Republic when Socrates confronts his opponent, who wants to be told what twelve is but does not want to here that it is twice six, or three fours; nor does he wish to be told that it is an odd or even number. How then are we best to present this information to him? Sometimes telling it like it is is the only way to convay a point. You also point out that these article are of no interest to anyone, but you have not cited a source for that information. Unless a source for you claim can be provided I am afraid it will have to be removed as per WP: No original research. TomStar81 02:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking Wikilawyering to a whole new level -- of absurdity. But for you, let's try to make this simple: let's divide the world into precisely two groups: those who own and play C&C, and those who don't:

• Those who own C&C: already have the game manual which contains all this information. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.
• Those who do not own C&C': have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.

• Total segment of world population that this article is actually useful for: none. The only possible group left would be those who lost their manuals and those who pirated their copies of C&C: the former group is very tiny and the latter group -- whatever their size -- can find assistance in their piracy elsewhere.

• Any questions? Or do you have any more bogosity up your sleeves? --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Tom, note that WP:NOR applies to articles, not discussions. Proto///type 09:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of that; I do not have occasion to check the AFD, nor am I particularly familar with its policies/guidelines. In lew of what I percieve to be two seperate personal attacks against me I resign myself from this page. If I have caused any of you to waste your time correcting my "bogosity" then I humbly apologize, as this was not my intention. Proto, although I disagree with you, I wish you Godspeed and good luck with your upcoming RTS AFDs. May there be mercy on us all for our sins. TomStar81 07:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• All of the quotes User:Calton picked out are not game guides. There are actual facts about the games --Taida 03:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's two non-sequitors in a row: 1) the quotes are not "game guides", they're advice to a player, such as one would find in a game guide. 2) Actual facts? Thank you for clearing up the matter for those who might have thought I was calling them fictional lies. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• The quotes are not "game guides" they are actual facts.--Taida 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for clarifying they're not fictional lies, though since I never claimed otherwise nor does their being part of a game guide somehow argues for their non-existence, as you seem to be implying. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• They are not fictional lies or game guides.--Taida 19:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. They're game guides, no matter how narrowly some are trying to parse the term, and if theye're not, they're of no interest to anyone who doesn't already own the game -- and who presumably have the owner's manual/strategy guide and don't NEED this to begin with. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- These articles are within their rights to stay, in my opinion. While it may be true that a good deal of the information within the articles are indeed "game specific," the "game specific" information is only there to detail the key differences between each vehicle/unit/etc. between each game. To reiterate, there have been a great deal of changes over the course of time to a lot of these units. For example, as stated, the GDI and Nod APCs eventually differentiated from one-another over the course of time, one becoming amphibious, and one being equipped with a drill for burrowing underground. But I digress.
  My point is that this information is here because people showed interest in learning the history of some of these units and equipment. Is that not what encyclopedias are for? Storing information and recalling it when interested? Go read an encyclopedia some time. I'm sure some of the "irrelivant" information you'd find there would turn your head. --Joseph Collins 03:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the lot of them. wikipedia is not a strategy guide. Keep the article on the notable software, take the rest elsewhere. Start a CNCwiki to hold it -- MrDolomite 05:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I second the motion of starting a "C&C Wiki," but don't second the motion for deletion. At the very least, not until a C&C Wikipedia has been established in a firm location. Then you can delete all you want. This information would, by that time, no longer be necessary to host here, afterall. --Joseph Collins 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that this information isn't necessary to hold here now. Wikipedia's an encyclopaedia, not a game guide, nor is it a holding bay for unencyclopaedic gamecruft while a suitable dumping ground is found. Proto///type 11:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, since we're on the subject, here's a few other things for you to complain about, mate. List of vehicles in the Halo universe, List of enemies in Doom, World of Warcraft items and equipment... I'm sure I could find more, but I think I've made my point. You give me five key differences between these pages and the accused Command & Conquer pages and I'll withdraw my Keep vote entirely. What have you got to lose? --Joseph Collins 10:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• If those pages are a problem for you, go here and follow the instructions. We'll wait for you. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• So where are your five key differences between these pages and those pages?--Taida 00:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hey. Don't rile him, folks. I was trying to make a point, not nag him/bother him incessantly. Maybe it was a little out-of-line to have him "name five key differences," but in the end, I may have just shot myself in the foot. To make a long story short, Proto will be submitting those articles for deletion later on, seeing as they're "also unencyclopediac". He made note to put it in my talk page so I'd see it, instead of here, though. --Joseph Collins 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• So where are your five key differences between these pages and those pages? Did I offer any? Was that an argument I was making? --Calton | Talk 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• So you can't even find any differences between these pages and those pages.--Taida 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - not a how to guide.--68.32.11.74 06:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think you mean delete and also these articles aren't how to guides.--Taida 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough.Voice-of-All 06:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• They are all very notable--Taida 17:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry" are notable? Cured cancer? Written many books? Starring in their own late-night chat show? Has a seat in a national legislature? Subject of multiple non-trivial media coverage? --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• They did make it into the C&C games so I think they are notable enough.--Taida 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, the new Wikipedia notability guideline: if it's in C&C, it's per se notable. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't say articles not related to C&C aren't notable, I'm just saying the C&C games are notable. Also, I don't think there is a new Wikipedia notability guideline.--Taida 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The elitist snobbery being displayed by some is really Uncivil and against all Wiki is supposed to stand for. TruthCrusader 19:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Was there an actual rationale buried in that sputtering somewhere? The "against all Wiki is supposed to stand for" is particularly amusing, considering how many violations of WP:NOT this thing covers. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason why these pages should be deleted, they have not told me how to do anything. I personal think it disturbing that an admin would so blatently attack these pages when several members of this community have piched in to help improve them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.108.25.1 (talk • contribs).
• Mostly Keep Keep the unit lists. These are not game guides. They would be useless to soemone looking for strategies. They are descriptions of the units, no different than all those articles we have about Pokemon types and fighting game characters. The lists of allies and such don't really seem substantial enough to warrant their own articles and should be merged into a series list or their respective games. Ace of Sevens 19:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• And the information value of knowing the names of specific units in a computer game is what? If it's useful, it's a game guide, and if it's useless, it doesn't belong. --Calton | Talk 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that a piece of information can be useful without being a game guide.--Taida 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• As do I. You could use that argument to call for deletion of almost anything. Things can be useful in other ways than a game guide way. Ace of Sevens 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• You could use that argument to call for deletion of almost anything. And if my grandma had wings she could fly to Miami. How, pray tell, does this statement address a single thing I said? Are you going to tell the rest of the class how this piece of information can be useful without it being a game guide? --Calton | Talk 13:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've never played any C&C game and I found it interesting informatation and a key part of the game. I'm saying that you seem to interpreting WP:NOT so broadly you could use it to delete any sort of video game information. The units of a real-time strategy game are important in the same way as characters of other works. It's the same way you can list the characters in Moby Dick without the article being Cliff's notes or mention that Tom Hanks lives in Hollywood without Wikipedia turning into a map to the star's homes. Ace of Sevens 16:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. These aren't like lists of minor characters in fiction. C&C units have no real plot development or personality. The Gap Generator will never be featured in an a saturday morning cartoon. A useless game guide is still a game guide. AMHR285^(talk) 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The gap generator is a valuable piece of technology that may one day prove to be useful. Also these aren't game guides, they are true facts.--Taida 02:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How are they true facts? You know C&C is a game, right? Proto///type 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I meant to say that the fact that it exists in the C&C games is true. I didn't mean to say it exists in real life.--Taida 12:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Merge. There's plenty of esoteric information on Wikipedia, just look at Category:Lists of fictional characters. I pretty much wrote the guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games#Scope of information so I agree in principle that guide-like content has no place in an encyclopedia, however I am not convinced that this is the case here. Red Alert is a very notable game, and a descriptive article detailing the units found in the game seems to be a topic worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia in my opinion. WP:NOT does not apply in my opinion. I have not looked through the entire list of articles nominated for deletion, so if there is any guide-like information then by all means that should be transwiki'd to StrategyWiki. I also agree with Ace of Sevens that the number of articles should be cut down: I think most of the relevant information could be merged into a List of Command & Conquer Red Alert Units article. So, to summarise I would merge most of the content into one article, and redirect or delete the rest. jaco♫plane 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  I have not looked through the entire list of articles nominated for deletion - um ... don't you think you should? And a descriptive article detailing the units in the game is precisely information for a game guide. Your own guidelines (not a policy) state a general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. So who, other than people playing this game, would need this information? Proto///type 09:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I looked at about 5 of the articles, I felt that was sufficient. In any case I never stated that the WP:CVG guidelines were policy at all, I was merely saying that I agree in principle that game-guide content has no place in an encyclopedia. Regarding who might need the information, I don't see how that applies exactly. It's an esoteric subject area, so what? Wikipedia is full of these (Category:Lists of Power Rangers monsters) .. are you suggesting all such articles should be deleted? I agree that the number of articles is too large and they should be merged into a more compact list. Still, a description of the units found in this notable game is not game-guide content in my opinion. jaco♫plane 11:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. So what's the point? What is the connection? It is very unfair to delete all articles related to Command & Conquer and yet did not even bother about Blizzard Entertainemt's games, which has enormous articles? Is this a bias? Is this discrimination? IF you have problems with the game I suggest that you post on gaming forums or ask the game producers themselves. Yes, Wikipedia is not really a stategy guide (and I don't know what is the connection, anyway), and Wikipedia is not even a forum site where you express your emotions by deleting! --203.87.151.54 09:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  It's not bias. I just decided to start with Command and Conquer. I'm going to shift out some of the Warcruft next. Can you clarify your vote, please - merge to what? Proto///type 09:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  Merge, as in all topics (i.e. infantry, armored) of a side (or faction) would have one article for that particular side, except for the technologies (i.e. Ion Storm) which will retain their status as one article. I hope you better fix the larger "problem" (Warcraft) rather than this! --203.87.151.54 09:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Delete Just deal with it all at once' You all said Wikipedia is not a strategy guide but you allow similar content

such as:

(Ginormous list of articles about games moved to the talk page of this AFD) Proto///type 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So keep it or delete all these pages too you stupid hipocrate.

Cs california 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, don't worry. He's getting to all that. I'm sure Proto appreciates you saving him so much time, though. I know I would. XD --Joseph Collins 23:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Relax there, California-person. No need to get all worked up. Just because something is similar in content, doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. For example, a list of weapons in Halo or the plot of Warcraft III is far more relevant to than lists of every single unit/structure/everything (of which there are very many!) in Command & Conquer. Wickethewok 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think I've ever seen someone try to attach a rider to an AFD. Heheh... Wickethewok 03:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• As I said to you on my talk page (where you posted the same message, but at least didn't call me stupid) - I can't do everything at once! Thank you for adding this list to my gamecruft page also. Proto///type 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. I don't get the point why these articles are being dealt first rather than those articles in Warcraft universe, for example. I am in support of lessening the number of articles by merging them by their sides/factions/groups (like GDI/NOD, Allies/Soviet, China/GLA/USA). I hope the nominator would prioritize the "bigger fish" rather than the articles that receives lesser attention, and I am eager to wait to see the the deleted articles of Warcraft first before proceeding to delete these articles related to C&C. Anyway, the reason of "Wikipedia is not a strategy guide is irrelevant since there are no connections of this argument to the article. I cannot support the deletion of this article because there is no definite argument in deleting these, even though with this invented reason. --Darth Narutorious 10:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  The presence of other poor articles is never an excuse for the existence of a poor article. Two wrongs don't make a right. C&C first, then I'm going to try and clear out the Warcruft. And if you think the C&C fans love their game guides, my goodness that will be fun. Proto///type 11:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for replying regarding my position! I agree with you in saying that, "Two wrongs don't make a right." However, why can't you correct the "other wrong" of you don't open up your concern on articles like Warcraft that you want to delete by nominating them as early as now? I also agree with what you say, which is, "The presence of other poor articles is never an excuse for the existence of a poor article." But why can't you start eliminating those "other poor articles" that you describe so that it would not be used as "an excuse for the existence of a poor article", in which I assume that the "poor article" you describe is this? This is contradicting to "C&C first, then I'm going to try and clear out the Warcruft." If you want to prove that these "poor articles" from a less famous game, like C&C be deleted first, then you should make a basis for that by making more famous game, like Warcraft as a concrete proof, rather than using a senseless, invented, and irrelevant argument as a proof. Note that I am not judging the fame of both games mentioned; however, it is evident that recent games like World of Warcraft and DOTA is more famous than the latest C&C games, Command & Conquer: Generals and Command & Conquer: The First Decade. I also want to grab the opportunity to suggest to you to delete the Defense of the Ancients article and DotA Allstars article since they are more of a "strategy guide" article rather than an encyclopaedic article. --Darth Narutorious 12:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to Admins: Please consider creating a wiki section for multimedia subjects such as Gaming subjects, Movie, and television series similar to wikitory and Wikiquote. These specific pages are allowed on answers.com and contains specific information which are consistantly developed in multiple games. This shows individuals have requested them since they are so common.

Cs california 02:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If you call this so called game guide then there are many thread like this so are you going to deleated them?. I dont see any point in deleting them. --SkyWalker 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Just make articles for the sides of the game and put everything of it. --210.213.69.112 04:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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.