Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Moved from main AFD discussion

Comment: Summarizing the position against the nominator The nom's only 2 issues are 1) Wikipedia is not a strategy guide and 2) cruft. He concedes that these pages do pass the policies of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. So our discussion ought only to be limited to the first 2. Also it must be noted that by grouping all the articles in one AfD, the decision is expected to keep or delete them all, not pick out specific weak articles (ie Surfing (Counter-Strike)) and delete only those. Those advocating the keep position do not necessarily approve of all articles, but since forced with the option of keeping all or deleting all, we see at least one good article in the list we want to keep, and therefore have to keep all unless the nominator decides to relist all individually.

Regarding strategy guide, we opposed to deletion respond that these simply are not strategy guides. Take Cs italy. There is nothing in that article that explains how to play the map. In the game Counter-Strike there simply is no "right" way to play a map, there is no "walkthrough", no "how-to" beat a map because either team can do an infinite number of things to which their opponents have to adjust. What the article has is (A) a description of the map, (B) an overhead view of the map, (C) some screenshots, (D) professional criticism against the map being balanced for both sides, (E) listing of some trivia regarding the map, including the translation of an opera song that can be heard in one section. Which of those 5 counts as a "strategy guide"? If I were to describe the Roman Coliseum, wouldn't the article have the same aspects? (description, blueprint, pictures, archictectual criticism, trivia) Since the nominator concedes that these maps are notable (as the Coliseum is notable) then there is no reason to object to the format.

Regarding cruft, we opposed to deletion respond that cruft is a highly subjective term, and that since notability was conceded these articles cannot be cruft. On the first, we can be sure that one man's featured article is another man's cruft. I could just as easily consider the Roman Coliseum cruft since I am an American with no interest in classical architecture or string theory as cruft because I don't know what 12-dimension space time means, but there are even more obvious targets on wikipedia (ie Simpsons_Roasting_on_an_Open_Fire, List_of_problems_solved_by_MacGyver, etc) that stay here. Secondly, the cruft guide that the nominator linked defines it as "selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." Since the nominator already conceded notability, therefore we don't have a "small population" and therefore this isn't cruft by that definition. The guide also states that "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion." So cruft cannot even be considered as a reason for deletion... it only sometimes leads to deletion under another policy. As for "poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral", this must be judged on each article individually.

Therefore, we are opposed to deletion seeing that the nominator's only two reasons do not hold up. David Bergan 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Recently found that the nominator is on a personal crusade against "gamecruft"... makes one wonder if he's objectively evaluating the content, or just trying to score notches in his belt. Bad faith. David Bergan 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, David, but the Chewbacca defense is not a Wikipedia policy, or even a guideline. If the Colosseum is notable, Wikipedia should have articles about computer game levels? That is a strange argument. Proto::type 11:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're worse than I thought. You already conceded notability and then now lack of notability is the reason why we shouldn't have these map article? You were begging for people to take your "Wikipedia is not a strategy guide" argument seriously. I did. I showed you how the format of these articles clearly avoids being in any way a "how-to" or "walkthrough." Now the issue is notability? Quit being a moving target.

I love it when people bring out the Chewbacca defense like it's the latest ruling from the Supreme Court. "Do you know what I think of your well-written 3-paragraph argument? I think it's mindless gibberish!" Well, for a person writing that, there are three possible explanations: (A) It actually is gibberish. (B) That person lacks the wherewithall to understand the argument and it merely appears to be gibberish to him (and him alone). or (C) That person does understand the argument but is trying to put up a defense of catch-phrases to avoid the fact that he is actually wrong about all this. Kindly, David Bergan 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

David, the diff you provided above (this one) makes no mention of any 'conceding' of notability. Did you provided the wrong diff, by mistake? I don't want to assume bad faith and think you are lying. Proto::type 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

"Notability is a side-issue. Failing WP:NOT is the chief problem with these articles"

in response to Haukur's comment

"I think a decent case can be made for the notability and verifiability of Counter-Strike maps." [1]

Kindly, David Bergan 17:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And how does that mean I said the maps were notable, exactly? Saying their notability (or lack of) is not the reason for the nomination doesn't mean I said they were notable (far from it). Proto::type 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Haukurth mentions that they are notable, and you say the issue is that they are strategy guides.

I write about how these are not strategy guides and then you say the issue is that they are not notable.

Instead of answering each argument head-on, you are just trying to deflect us by pointing at something new. If lack of notability is really where you think these articles fail, make your case for it right here, because it wasn't mentioned in the nomination summary. Kindly, David Bergan 17:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to make this clear. I am nominating these articles for deletion because they are not suitable for wikipedia; they fail WP:NOT, which states wikipedia is not the place for game guides. I believe they are game guides. I fully appreciate you believe they are not. This is what an AFD discussion is for (rather than calling me dumb, likening me to a hick, or accusing me of bad faith).Proto::type 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're taking some of my comments more personally than I intended them. The crack about a hick was a reference to myself (the guy living in South Dakota). And while I did make a remark to the effect of a bag of hammers, it was written out of resentment from the Chewbacca defense comment you hurled my way. There is nothing more insulting to me than when I put a lot of time and thought into a complete and valid argument and someone else tries to then dismiss it as patent nonsense. I expect people to at least have the courtesy to recognize a good argument, even when it's on the other side. Anyway, I rephrased the hammers comment after being called on it by a 3rd party. (The Chewbacca comment is still there.)

Now let's consider "bad faith". Is it possible for me to assume good faith when someone (A) nominates articles I'm working on to irretrievable deletion (B) nominates them without any prior talk page discussion (C) doesn't notify the users who have mainly contributed to the articles that they are up for AfD (D) didn't even read the talk pages to see that we had just had an AfD fewer than 2 months ago (E) calls them cruft (F) makes a user page declaring his mission to unilaterally purge wikipedia of a certain class of articles (G) says on that page that the articles I've worked on are "bastard children" (H) brags about deleting other people's work (and wanting to keep things red-linked) (I) plays a moving target with the issues of strategy guide and notability to avoid serious discussion and (J) shows a total lack of willingness to change his mind?

And all that was before you whipped out the Chewbacca comment, moved my comments from plain view, and wrote me up on charges of internal spam. Let me assure you that I have demonstrated the greater patience.

On a friendlier note, I'm glad to see that notability isn't an issue you're pursuing. I'm going to hold you to your word that all you are claiming is the "strategy guide" violation. Kindly, David Bergan 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't ever mean to upset anyone when I nominate an article for deletion. It is always an area of that engenders a lot of emotion, and people are always - understandably - invested in anything they have put a lot of effort in. I'm used to bearing the repercussions of attempting to clear (what I see as) misplaced work out of Wikipedia. Proto::type 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closing Summary

I strongly disagree with the closing summary, pegging "keep" voters as the only uncivil ones. I also disagree with the accusations of David Bergan's internal spamming... did the closing admin not read the comments following Proto's? --Varco 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact: David Bergan was vote stacking. Only keep-voters were spammed and that is plain and simple corruption. On a more fundamental level, wikipedia is not for campaigning. And how utterly uncivil were also the reactions against Proto's noting the corruption. Why is David allowed to break the rules? Why didn't I get a message? Why ignore the thousands of other wiki-editors? Do you guys think you deserve to vote more than the other editors? Do you think own these pages? The whole thing is 100% an insult. Never ever try vote stacking again. I sincerely hope David Bergan will be blocked for this. 131.211.42.152 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Varco. I guess it is now perceived a blockable crime to inform interested parties... even though, as you pointed out, that is supposedly a duty of the nominator.

I especially liked the "even immediate future nominations" part. It gives me hope that we'll be in another AfD tomorrow. David Bergan 06:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

David, it may not have been considered vote stacking if you had also informed those who had voted 'delete' in the first AFD. FYI, also, I will split the AFD out and re-nominate each group of articles individually (the surfing one, the maps, the collated map articles). Proto::type 08:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a vote for a bunch of video game articles. It ranks among one of the least important issues facing mankind (or even Wikipediakind) today, and is hardly a blockable offence even if we were to buy your rationale that David was "vote stacking". (Aren't AfDs supposed to be immune to vote stacking, anyway?) A little perspective, please. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 15:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Some points:

• AfD is not a vote. That's why it's no longer called Votes for Deletion.
• AfD specifically states that the nominator should inform the significant contributors of the articles he or she is attempting to delete. I don't think that pointing out that this was not done is uncivil. Why am I explaining this again? Did you even read the comments following Proto's accusation?
• As for your perception that David only notified those who support keeping... do you think that the significant contributors to an article would support the deletion of them? Those who contributed will naturally want to keep their work.
• If you want messages of any kind, get an account. You would not have gotten a message anyway, because you are not a significant contributor to the articles.

--Varco 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)