Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft Diplomacy

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. If anyone would like to merge a brief mention to somewhere, the text is available on request. Sandstein 10:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft Diplomacy

StarCraft Diplomacy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nomination for deletion Afding rather than prod'ing as this substantial article has been around since November 2004(!!) and has a fair bit of an edit history (it has been prodded in the past but this was contested though never taken to afd) . This is an article about a set of fan-created scenario maps for the video game StarCraft which are used to play a version of the boardgame Diplomacy using fan-customized rules. 1,060 google hits but almost all relevant hits are on amateur video game sites or forums plus there is a high level of spam/wikimirror sites. This is game fan-made scenario type (not really a mod) which fails WP:NFT as well as being gamecrufty. Bwithh 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• The article doesn't assert notability apart from being "popular on the Battle.Net servers", but from the mod's website (hit counter reads 21,000, forum has 127 registered users) this does not seem to have the same level of popularity as notable game mods such as Counter-Strike. Delete unless independent sources are added and notability is asserted. Demiurge 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The information is well-written and accurate, even if weakly notable. Where's the harm? -Toptomcat 23:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT). Wikipedia also maintains discerning criteria for reliable verifiability(WP:V). Treating Wikipedia as a free-for-all site for all "harmless" information undermines its authority and mission as an encyclopedia Bwithh 02:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, game guide in violation of WP:NOT, fails to demostrate notability, and is mainly WP:OR. Crufty, vanity, original research game guide = delete. NeoFreak 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- NN fancruft. Pete Fenelon 02:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks sources, verification, might be fine as an external link in the Starcraft article, possible a brief mention there, but AFAICT, that's it. It's not a Rocket Arena. Mister.Manticore 03:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge a small summary to StarCraft per WP:NOT and per proposed game notability guidelines. Insufficient evidence of notability to pass WP:NET. Hasn't had broad influence like Counter-Strike. Hasn't generated significant coverage in the Diplomacy (game) community nor in general gaming magazines professional enough to meet WP:RS. Barno 19:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. I like this article, it's well-written and reasonably interesting to see how a game like Diplomacy can be ported to an online RTS setting, but it doesn't quite stand on its own. I wish there were better sources available, but given the subject-matter, I don't see it as likely. --Arvedui 03:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - while "fancruft" is hardly a deletion criteria that should be taken seriously, there is a lack of application to WP:RS, WP:V, notability, and WP:WEB. OR WP:SOFTWARE. Or even WP:NOT a collection of Diplomacy remakes. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:30, 1 December 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.