Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem 3D monsters

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. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duke Nukem 3D monsters

• Delete Wiki is not a game guide, fancruft, indiscriminate information. The Kinslayer 12:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 12:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. DN3D was an enormously popular game at the time, probably second only to Doom, which has its own list of enemies in Doom.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - And for the record, I'd nominate that Doom article for deletion if it wasn't for that fact I'm positive it would generate a lot of sock puppetry. The Kinslayer 13:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Highly game-guidey material and unenencyclopedic. As a general additional comment, the use of over two dozen fair use images is highly questionable. Wickethewok 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It just needs to be cleaned up to be more encyclopedic, and the exact ways to battle and kill them should be removed. Nemu 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Unless your volunteering to do this yourself, I highly doubt any sort of clean-up will occur if this article is kept. The cleanup tags have been there a good 3 months if not more. (There were just too many edits to find exactly when they were added, but I went back three months and couldn't find them, so they must be older still.) The Kinslayer 13:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - I'll remove the direct game guide stuff, but I know nothing of the series, so I won't be able to add to it. Then I don't believe it will fall under need for deletion for just being messy. And I don't believe it would fall under cruft(which I don't believe is direct grounds for deletion) unless you plan on nominating Mario series enemies and the other articles like that sometime soon. Nemu 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gamecruft. Not comparable to Mario characters are these have cultural significance outside the game screen Bwithh 14:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a game manual to me. Recury 20:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is so close to game manual copy that I double-checked to see if it's copyvio. (It's not.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - So if I was to remove all of the pointless how to dodge and kill parts, would the article be acceptable? I don't feel like wasting the time if it'll be deleted in the end anyways. Nemu 22:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Personally, I still think it would warrant deletion as indiscriminate information. The Kinslayer 22:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - I really have no clue on how popular the Duke Nukem games are, but it seems like there are enough of them to make it pretty popular. If more of the games were covered in the article, it seems like it qualify as notable. Nemu 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It's probably more accurate to say Duke Nukem WAS popular (in a cult kind of way really). He vanished without a trace years ago. Duke Nukem Forevers been at the top of the vaporware chart ever since. Back to topic, I really find it hard to find anything that could be done with this article that could make it legitimately worth keeping. The Kinslayer 22:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I admit I'd have to see the article after the changes to comment. That said, I sort of doubt it; this seems to be a bunch of indiscriminate trivia sourced only to direct observation of the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to a game guide. Excessive detail for an encyclopedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dukecruft. Eusebeus 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Not encyclopedic. But if all of the examples of this type of article were to be deleted Wikipedia would be reduced to a shrunken shell of its former self. Pedia-I ^{Project Jesus} 21:02, April 8, 2007 (UTC)
  • The shell with the good parts in it? Recury 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Stretch marks are no reason not to lose useless fat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Not encyclopedic. But if all of the examples of this type of article were to be deleted Wikipedia would be reduced to a shrunken shell of its former self. i strongly agree to this. and if wiki is meant for all kinds of information (eventualy) this could easily stand the test of time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.71.156.190 (talk • contribs).
  • Um, no. Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The Kinslayer 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Unsourced and don't know if its true also is game cruft --Cs california 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While I've played this game and know most of this is indeed accurate, it's written too much like a game guide. Most of what is says is trial and error in-game testing. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 13 October 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.