Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfing (Counter-Strike) (third nomination)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surfing (Counter-Strike)

The article above was Speedy deleted while it was listed here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfing (Counter-Strike) (second nomination)). The article was NOT identical to the previous one, so G4 did not apply. The deleting editor (Fang Aili) restored it, then it got CSD-G4 tagged again and Fang Aili himself changed the tag to {{db|WP:NOT a game guide}} [1], which is NOT a criterium for speedy deletion as well. I do not care for this article getting deleted, but please follow policy when speedy deleting articles. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as copyvio, the diagrams of shapes appear identical to the diagrams contained in the external link guide at the bottom of the page.--Andeh 15:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. —Ruud 15:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete "Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted as a result of a discussion in Articles for deletion or another XfD process, unless it was undeleted per the undeletion policy or was recreated in the user space. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject." The article doesn't have to be an EXACT copy of the one that previously was deleted; however, it shares the common name, and accomplishes the same task. --Porqin 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Substantially identical is not the same as having the same name and topic. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• by any title --Porqin 15:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• The whole point of this exception is once we have receieved consensus from the community about whether an article of this type and topic belong, we don't need to continually have to reach the same consensus and waste the time of the editors. --Porqin 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yes I know that would be true for highly similar articles, but this article does not even look like the one before (with regard to content, but it had the same subject and title). Speedy deletion is a powerful tool here on Wikipedia, but, for a good reason, the use of it is restricted. I voted delete on the two previous AfDs and relisted it here myself. I just strongly feel that speedy deletion should be according to policy, not to feeling. I am referring to: the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject, this was a new article on the same subject. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Please just delete it. Good grief. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This is also unverifiable and smells of original research. Scorpiondollprincess 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and can we protect the article this time? Whispering 16:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please Tonywalton  | Talk 17:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, game guide, unverifiable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 19:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a game guide. Possibly WP:OR and/or WP:COPYVIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 22:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, pointless gamecruft. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because WP:OR, but I think Reinoutr is making a perfectly valid point here. Speedy delete should be used sparingly, and not in the case of articles with substantially different content. This is still bad, but it's a *different* bad article with little hope of salvage, and must go through the process again. Of course, if it's a copyvio, then that would warrant speedy delete, but otherwise he's right. In some cases AFD is used because a full rewrite from scratch is preferable to a current mangled article. That should be respected, and articles rewritten in good faith should go through the AFD process again, in full. 129.61.46.16 13:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Josh
• Delete, game guide, unverifiable. --Stellmach 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Peephole 15:58, 4 August 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.