Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheating in Counter-Strike (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V. A bulk of the keep votes is ILIKEIT. Nishkid64 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheating in Counter-Strike

Cheating in Counter-Strike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I know this is a 2nd nomination, because of a total different argument than the 1st. Encyclopedic worthy or not, this is all 100% orginial research :-( --Jestix 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I disagree. There's a lot of stuff that could be trimmed, but also a lot that is verifiable. The chronology of cheat and anti-cheat software can certainly be verified from documentation for the software itself. The section about why gamers cheat and why gamers cheat in CS specifically are pretty much unsourceable, though. So fix it! There are also some legitimate references already included at the bottom. — brighterorange (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • First nomination: Cheating in Counter-Strike at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheating in Counter-Strike (2006-10-22 – 2006-11-02) keep and cleanup
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I rarely, if ever, support the claim of original research as a reason to delete. If something is original research, there should be an attempt to source it instead of delete the article entirely. And even if some of it is OR, that can be deleted. However, as Brighterorange said, there's plenty of documentation about cheats from Valve. As for the section of why gamers cheat, I believe that it can be sourced. .V. (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Where have you been for the past while? EVERYTHING needs to pass WP:V and WP:RS, otherwise it gets trashed. After 18 times, that's what got the GNAA. There is no original research allowed at Wikipedia. None. Zilch. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, of course. I'm just saying... we should make our best attempt to fix an article before deleting it. .V. (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Some of the hacks and cheats for Counter-Strike, and the anti-cheating mechanisms spawned from it would pass WP:SOFT, for example, Punkbuster. I have a multi page magazine article from PC Zone listed at WP:CVG/M regarding Counter-Strike cheating, I know there have been more published since I stopped getting the magazine. Of course, it doesn't mean the article isn't rubbish. I think there is a problem however with how cheating is presented on Wikipedia, there's no overarching organisation so we have other articles with overlap such as aimbot and wallhacking and Cheating in online games. Maybe a Cheating in online first-person shooters article would be more appropriate, I'm not sure. - hahnchen 15:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - As stated above, much of the information in the article does qualify under WP:SOFT, though I feel that the information would be far better served if it was combined into a general cheating in FPS games article. This article, should it remain, needs to be seriously trimmed and rewritten. It's got sources, but it comes off as if the original editor researched all the links (which aren't referenced properly, probably why the nominator tagged it as WP:OR) and wrote a personal essay rather than a properly referenced Wikipedia article. --Scottie theNerd 16:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete Maybe a general article about gaming cheating is required but a general's readers encylopedia having an article about cheating in one particular game? come off it. send it off to a counter-strike wiki. --Larry laptop 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this. Merits a couple of paragraphs in the main article and perhaps one more in an article on cheeting in games. We are WP:NOT a HOWTO nor a history of howtoing.--Docg 19:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Cant we just make a Wikibook about Counterstrike? There they can do their fan cruft stuff unhindered without limits (that is beyond free speach ;o)). --19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not an unreasonable article. Wikipedia has far worse; I suggest the editor who proposed deletion peruse some of the 350,000 Buffy The Vampire Slayer articles on Wikipedia, for example... Killdevil 20:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:POKEMON is not a valid reason for keeping or deleting any article. Please do not use the existence of another problem to justify this problem. There is not a single in-line citation in this article, which means that it looks like total original resarrch. Hbdragon88 03:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete with prejeduce to all other strategy guides per WP:NOT a stategy guide or a place for external links (which there are many at the bottom), all articles must have reliable sources (which doesn't include forums), and WP:V. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. If you find this article useful, perhaps you might enjoy www.gamefaqs.com, which is where this sort of thing should go. Any article about cheating in Counterstrike, if we had to have one, would be about the cheating, listing the history in a structured and referenced manner, the articles people have written about the cheating culture in Counterstrike, perhaps. Unfortunately, there are no reliable references, and there are no articles written about cheating in Counterstrike, so what we have instead is a shitty big list of ways to haXX0rz the game and a load of namedrops for a bunch of user / anon's awesome scriptkid buddies. Not even remotely close to an encyclopaedic article. And then for good measure, a crapload of original research about 'why Counterstrike is subject to so much cheating', with theories pulled out of the air, blogs, and forums. It will be unfortunate if the special interest groups get this one kept with keep it because I like it arguments, when there is not a single redeeming feature about it. To summarise based on policy, this article ought to be deleted because it fails Wikipedia is not a game guide, is irredeemably original research, lacks reliable sources, and is 99% unverifiable. It might just about be NPOV, and hey, one out of 5 pillars is enough, right? Proto::► 20:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Proto's outstanding comments. This is in violation of WP:NOT, and is an original research magnet. Martinp23 20:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Proto's excellent arguments, and mainly per WP:NOR. – Elisson • T • C • 20:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per keep arguments above. A lot of the historical information can be sourced, it just hasn't been done yet. As well, this article is in no way a "guide" to cheating, nor is it a "strategy guide" on how to play while cheating. To imply so merely brings into focus an apparent lack of knowledge in relation to gaming and specific gaming communities. To claim that this article is a guide would imply that using soley this article and the tools it specifically cites you could thus go cheat, and cheat successfully in Counter-Strike. This is not the case. While the article definitely needs to be rewritten, and some portions of it need to be cut out, to say that the topic as a whole is a "shitty list of haxxors" would be a mistake. Xenocide85 21:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    It's claims like this that are the problem = 'a lot of this information can be sourced'. If you can reliably source just 20% of this information, of the article as it stands right now, I will withdraw my delete vote, delete User:Proto/gc, and never vote delete on any article to do with gamecruft ever again. If the article can be sourced as you claim, then prove it. Otherwise, it's just arm-waving. Proto::► 22:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    Never did I say that I could cite sources for the entire article. Just in case you did not catch this the first time: A lot of the historical information in this article can be cited. So if you aren't taking what I said totally out of context or just being plain wrong, I could in fact cite sources for 20% of a lot of the historical portion of this article. In addition, you are not voting on one person's ability to add sources to this article. By voting to delete you are suggesting that the article should not exist in the first place. You are removing even the possibility of adding sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xenocide85 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete per Proto --Pboyd04 22:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Proto -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suggest improvement, not deletion. This article is not a "strategy guide" or a "how-to". Anyone who thinks so is clearly crazy. Adraeus 02:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above... Addhoc 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Explaining things is not original research. This isn't taxonomy or virology. --Soakologist 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, unless something is sourced/cited, then it is original research. Remember, everything needs to be sourced. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - per Proto. Havok (T/C/e/c) 09:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it would do better in the Valve Anti-Cheat page, BUT the information on this page is important. 15:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The discussion is not about importance, importance is always a difficult meassure, and is in fact none. My barber is important for me too, nevertheless he has no wikipedia page. In this case here it is about original research, and therefore unfit for an encyclopedia. --Jestix 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:38, 17 January 2007 (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.