Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Dozer Build (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 of the debate was delete. Petros471 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three Dozer Build

Still referenced solely by a single comic and a message board thread. Google shows about 252 hits for "Three Dozer Build". Delete as non-notable and wikipedia is not a how-to. --InShaneee 17:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

First AfD; Second AfD

• Delete per nom, gamecruft.--Andeh 17:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nom has provided no reasons other than ones previous AfDs (which were all fairly conclusive keepsone of which was a fairly conclusive keep, the other of whch was a 9 keep 6 delete/merge no consensus - see the article talk page for links to them). Articles should not be deleted if there was a previous consensus to keep, unless new reasons can be provided. Otherwise why not nominiate an article time after time after time, just becuase you lost an AfD (although I an NOT claiming that nom is bad faith - I am merely saying what the precedent set would be). Batmanand | Talk 17:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The first nom was 'no consensus', not keep. --InShaneee 17:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Apologies - I did not mean to mislead. Corrected in my post. Batmanand | Talk 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom GassyGuy 19:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 19:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This belongs on GameFAQs, not WP. It's gamecruft, through and through. It's completely unencyclopedic (and could never be considered encyclopedic), and it fails the Google test. -- Kicking222 22:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and I'm sick of people using Wikipedia to give their GameFAQs guides some pretty pictures. This was to go in my mass deletion of this C&C crap (here), but InShahneee beat me to this one. Closing admin, please also note the multiple screenshots on this page (which are dubiously fair use anyway) will need to be deleted, also. Proto||type 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not absolutely sure what you mean; on the Three Dozer Build page there are no screenshots; indeed not images at all. Batmanand | Talk 13:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, got my articles mixed up. It's all the other C&C:G "articles" that have a pile of screenshots on them. Proto||type 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep. Last two times, I voted 'keep' unconditionally. There is undoubtedly a subject matter, connected to a product of note, and is a term that would be recognised by many thousands of people. Notwithstanding my support for its continued existence, it requires some changes: deleting the section called 'the phrase' (or changing it beyond recognition), writing it in a manner more accessible to non-C&C players, and providing better references than those already there. If those things are done, the article's quality will improve dramatically, and I suspect that the number of nominations for deletion will dry up. Bastin 09:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is WP:NOT a game guide.--Kchase02 T 18:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not a game guide -- Tawker 23:06, 17 June 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.