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

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surfing (Counter-Strike)

This is one of the articles that was group listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps, which was closed yesterday as 'no consensus, but with no prejudice against the immediate renomination of individual articles' (as the previous AFD was so mixed, with many different 'keep these, delete those' opinions). This one is clearly a game guide about a technique used in Counter Strike, and fails WP:NOT and WP:V. Delete. Proto::type 08:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a game-guide. I'd also like to be the first to accuse Proto of being a Nazi Zionist tool of the Deletionist Cabal. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sounds like a very specialized, uncommonly played type of CS. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Proto and accuse per MiB. bikeable (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; this is not a game guide about a technique used in Counter-Strike. It is an article describing a popular type of Counter-Strike level. It gives a general summary of the concept with a screenshot. It doesn't tell you how to play and in no way attempts to be a strategy guide. Google test comes up with tons of hits for searches like surfing "counter-strike" and surfing counterstrike. No, you cannot go down to the library find published sources about surfing in Counter-Strike, but you can find thousands of Internet sites about it to establish verifiability. TomTheHand 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm seeing a discussion of a game technique, and a discussion of a type of game-level, all-righty. Confirm the "tons" of Ghits per TomTheHand; however, they appear to be fan forums and download sites, nothing to show notability. Verifiable, yes, but this is not the point. Tychocat 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gamecruft. Artw 20:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom despite obvious Nazi-cabal ties. Wickethewok 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'd be interested to hear a more detailed description of the nominator's reasons for wanting to delete the article; WP:NOT and WP:V don't tell me much. What part of WP:NOT does the article violate? I can see WP:V to a certain extent, since the information from the article is not found in reliable, published sources, but I'm sort of surprised that this article has been singled out in that way. Thousands of articles on Wikipedia do not cite published sources but are not nominated for violating WP:V. I've read the nominator's general response to this, which is something along the lines of "I'll get to those eventually," but I somehow doubt the nom intends to nominate Something Awful for not citing published sources, or perhaps Slashdot. The sources that the article cites should be considered reliable in the proper context (talking about the Counter-Strike mod in question). This is not a vote, so unless the nom can actually describe how WP:NOT and WP:V apply here, I don't see how a bunch of "delete per nom, gamecruft" responses represent an adequate debate on the issue. TomTheHand 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking at WP:NOT now, I see that you're trying to use the reference to "game guide." Step back and look at the context, please. The policy is "while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction." The phrase "game guide," in this context, means "guide to playing a game." This article is not a guide to playing a game, but rather a description of a popular mod; therefore, WP:NOT does not apply. You're using the words of an official policy out of context as part of your personal mission against "cruft." TomTheHand 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete clear violation of WP:NOT--Nick Y. 21:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How? I'm looking at WP:NOT right now and I'm not seeing anything applies. I'm not trying to be difficult, but WP:NOT does not say anything about "Wikipedia is not a place to write about popular mods to a game which 19.5 million people own." TomTheHand 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The game is notable. Every little thing associated with the game? Not so much. Violates WP:NOT by my reading of it (and yes, we already know not everyone agrees with that) but even if it didn't it's not notable in the context of a general encyclopaedia. GassyGuy 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is NOT a "game guide"--Nick Y. 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please reread the context of "game guide." It is in the context of "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual." Do you contend that the article is an instruction manual, or did you misunderstand WP:NOT? This applies to everyone who has said that the article violates WP:NOT. Do you contend that the article is written as an instruction manual? If not, WP:NOT does not apply. TomTheHand 22:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of NOT to begin with (instruction manual is not ment to limit, but game guide is ment ot expand the concept of not being instructive in general by citing a specific instance); but I also believe that the maps are primarily instructive. They have exceptional utility in assisting game play.--Nick Y. 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you believe "game guide" means? I'd be interested in hearing your personal definition, based off of the following policy:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.

Also, the article just contains a list of names of popular maps. I don't see how that is of "exceptional utility". Did you have this AFD confused with another one? This is an article describing a Counter-Strike mod. TomTheHand 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is not a game guide or instruction manual, I don't how it could be interpreted that way. It is a descriptive article about a mod and gametype, how it plays, and then a list of maps. There are no instructions. As far as verifiability, the game itself is an acceptable primary source. As far as issues not addressed in the nomination, "counter-strike surfing" results in 1.27 million GHits, so it is at least semi-notable as a mod probably being played by thousands of people. (Of course, that does need verifiability.) --SevereTireDamage 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete counterstrikecruft. If needed merge any useful content into Counter-Strike --Pboyd04 00:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pbody04. -- GWO
• Delete looks like a game guide to me. Whispering 23:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as above --ParalysedBeaver 01:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment rather than delete, I say we consider consolidating this article with a few other Counter-Strike related articles - 24.9.10.235 06:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm sorry, I've had difficulty getting a response to this issue. I quoted the relevant part of WP:NOT above. Could someone define "game guide" to me? I've asked here and on the nominator's talk page and the closest thing I got to a response is "I disagree with your reading of NOT." TomTheHand 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge some info to Custom Counter-Strike maps; it's a type of map and a type of play, but do not keep as a separate article. Too specialized. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• merge to Custom Counter-Strike maps it is a notable type of map and gameplay that people will search here for Yuckfoo 18:15, 21 July 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.