Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of StarCraft

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 debate was no consensus.  Grue  18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay of Starcraft

Delete: Game instructions and strategies aren't encyclopedia material. Lhlhlh 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as gamecruft and how-to. Brian G. Crawford 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete gameguides must die ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well written and relevant article. An encyclopedia is meant to be an attempt at a comprehensive collection of human knowledge. It provides more than just a guide alone but relavant information regarding the mechanics of the game, which is of use to those desiring research on the game, just as much so as a discussion of the mechanics of basketball or poker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.140.121.137 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Significant sub-article of a good (featured) article. This is also *not* a strategy guide or instruction manual, but rather a description of the gameplay (among other things). Try actually reading the article next time. ShardPhoenix 06:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: ShardPhoenix fails to disclose that he/she is a previous contributor to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.34.90.110 (talk • contribs).

• Comment: Such disclosure is not necessary. And please sign your contributions. Sandstein 06:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete cruft, and yes it reads exactly like a cross between a manual and a gameplay guide. WP:NOT. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. You guys seriously need to read the article. I admit I used to contribute to the article, and I've been a fierce opponent of fancruft, but realize the article isn't so much about how to play the game as much as an analysis of the gameplay and the professional scene. It's well written; it's not just a compilation of strategies; at the very most it should just be rewritten. Certainly not deleted.--Etaonish 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• We've read it. The first half reads like a manual, the second half like a strategy guide, and player rankings don't really belong here either. 156.34.89.249 04:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Some of the content could be added to the existing wikibook, though. 156.34.89.249 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Mostly cruft. Some content has merit, as per Etaonish, but it's still unsourced WP:OR. Sandstein 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment/Request I don't see how any of this is "cruft" in the sense of being either a strategy guide or a manual. Can someone quote some objectionable section if you think so? I didn't write the upper sections but to me they read like a description (that could be useful to a number of people), not a prescriptive guide. People seem to be aggressively slinging around terms like "fancruft" just because this is an electronic game. I doubt a similar description of a sport would attract this level of negative attention. Even if the article needs to be modified somehow, simply deleting it would seem a huge waste given the large amount of information here that is not easily available in compiled form elsewhere. Also see Magic:_the_gathering for an example of a similar article that is also perfectly worthy of Wikipedia (it's even on the "good article" list). ShardPhoenix 07:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The MtG article isn't similar at all, actually. Transwiki-ing it into the existing StarCraft wikibook would save the effort from being wasted. -156.34.95.245 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to wikibooks. This is actually decent well written, and I would call for the same to happen of an article of this same nature on say football. Kotepho 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We do apparently have things such as Category:Football (soccer) tactics and skills, American football strategy, American football defensive schemes, American football rules, Category:American football plays, etc so there is clearly acceptance of this sort of thing. That doesn't mean I like it though. Kotepho 13:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no reason for deletion and it is actually a very good article. Freddie 13:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WIN -156.34.95.245 13:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This is not a gameguide at all, but a reference for game mechanics and history of professional players. This featurette has a wealth of information and the author put a ton of research into it. The analysis of gameplay is spot on, this article is very well written and informative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.83.183.233 (talk • contribs).

Still doesn't belong on WP. 156.34.95.245 13:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is there someone besides the anonymous IP user crusading against this article that would like to comment on:
  • How this is different from the football articles noted by Kotepho, and the MtG article (which is in fact quite similar, especially many of the subarticles)
  • What sections in particular are "cruft" (As ShardPhoenix pointed out, it isn't a manual so much as a guide to the mechanics of the most popular nonMMORPG online game; it isn't a strategy guide so much as a description of what top-level games are like)
  • Why things like player rankings (objectively determined) are not permitted for an electronic sport, but entirely permissible for say, tennis
  • Why deletion is preferable to say, putting up a request for sources; cleaning up some of the bad sections. Considering the fact that so many think it is an encyclopedic entry, do you really think it merits deletion insofar as it is "beyond hope to ever become an encyclopedic entry?" --Etaonish 13:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Most of the accusations of cruft seem to be a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that it happens to be on a game. As a non-player of Starcraft, it seems entirely permissible to me, considering what else we allow on Wikipedia.--TheEvilLibrarian 13:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As a player of starcraft, I still think it's cruft. The majority is OR; the rankings may be barely notable but it could go either way. --Mmx1 03:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has anyone seen how much time has been put into this article? Take a look. You delete it and relevant encyclopediac information goes down the tube. This article isn't a "guide", it merely describes the mechanics of the game and how professional gamers play. Relevant information.--Nissi Kim 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki this should be in wikibooks- Melaen 16:08, 11 April 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.