Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps (2nd 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 -- Y not? 01:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike maps

Counter-Strike maps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Bloated with fancruft, comprised with original research, and generally an uncyclopedic topic that can easily be merged into the main article, if it's even necessary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The previous discussion failed with no consensus, so I believe that the consensus may have changed enough for another decision to be formed on this. Personally, I play Counter-Strike, but I feel that this can go elsewhere. WaltCip 13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nominator's Rationale - Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CRUFT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WaltCip (talk • contribs) 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
• First nom Axem Titanium 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - not an indescriminate list of junk. An article on the maps of a game? This is even worse than Harry Potter. WP:CRUFT. Patstuart^talk·edits 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete per WP:NOT. Haven't we had this discussion before?Artw 22:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge, per not a paper encyclopedia. We've got tons of stuff that would not be found in many encyclopedias, including seperate articles on each and every episode of many TV series. In this case, there is one article dealing with them all, which is a good compromise in my opinion. The article should be cleaned up thoroughly though, to include critical discussion of the topic, referencing and removal of the lists, as we do not need to be comprehensive in this case. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC) -- edit: merger is also fine with me, as explained below -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• I very much doubt that an out-of-the-box gaming topic such as this one will stand in the encyclopedia. Perhaps in an FAQ or a game guide, but this really doesn't fit. It seems like that this is what is best for Wikipedia.--WaltCip 21:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• If 'not paper' was a valid argument for an AFD keep, wouldn't that make the whole AFD process completely pointless? Wouldn't everything be a keep? --SubSeven 21:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me quote WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover'. Of course that is a valid argument, just as the "not an indiscriminate collection" that is used by the nominator. I think this article can exist, in a form where it discusses the maps used by this game rather then list them and can be sourced from reliable sources. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• In that form, it would be better off in the main article.--WaltCip 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fine with me, but AfD is not the correct way to achieve merger. That can be done without listing it here. AfD is about deletion of articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• You'll also note that WP:NOT doesn't say "therefore, we should have articles on anything and everything" which sounds more like your interpretation of it. Again, if "Wikpiedia is not paper" is an argument for keeping any article, then there's a pretty huge loophole in the AFD system. --SubSeven 23:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I certainly do not want to keep everything. I do not want individual articles on each and every map for example. But I DO think an article like this can be part of Wikipedia yes. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - complete cruft - what on earth is this doing in a general reader's encyclopedia. WP:NOT, WP:WHATISTHISBOLLOCKS? and so on. --Fredrick day 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dancter 15:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It clearly breaks WP:NOT.Mattyatty 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above. — Deckiller 17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - The maps and gameplay of Counter-Strike are an integral part of the game, and their evolution an integral part of its history. However, pretty much no one can be bothered to edit the article. If I put some work to it, I could come up with something decent, the inclusion of new maps and gamemodes into the game can easily be sourced from the video game press, which could back up primary sourcing. Counter-Strike is still the professional level team game, the detonation maps are played for big money, yet this isn't mentioned in the article, nor are the specialist CPL maps. You could probably merge the official and discontinued gameplay types back into the Counter-Strike article, the unofficial stuff should just be killed anyway. - hahnchen 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and summarize within the main CS article. Zeality 03:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Or merge a much trimmed version with main article if necessary. As it is there are no sources for anything. Wickethewok 00:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I didn't see much, if any game guide material, so I don't see anything that an editor familiar with the work cannot adjust. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I doubt there is any research into the "most popular" maps of each category, and yes, it feels like fancruft. <3 bunny 02:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT. Counter-Strike is notable, but the maps themselves are not. If the maps are integral to Counter-Strike history, incorporate them into the main article. There is little need to create a separate article to explain the different game types in CS and list all of its maps. --Scottie_theNerd 04:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, Wikipedia is not paper is not a valid "keep" argument (see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING). Maps are an integral part of CS but their importance should be covered in the main article with a paragraph explaining their importance, not a game-guidey article about each map ("counter-terrorists must locate and defuse the bomb in 45 seconds"; if that's not a game-guide, I don't know what is). Axem Titanium 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am getting a bit annoyed with people telling me that "Wikipedia is not paper" is somehow not a valid argument. Any argument, which is well reasoned, is a valid argument. There is no magic list of arguments that are or are not valid. WP:AADD is an essay (which, ironically, was written for a significant part by me in its early stages), whereas WP:NOT is policy. "Wikipedia is not paper" is a perfectly valid argument in these discussions, as it means that we do not have to exclude stuff because they would not make it into Brittanica for example. I am not saying the article is good at the moment, I am saying I think a separate, sourced article can exist, next to the main article, because "Wikipedia is not paper". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have made some edits to the text to attempt to remove some fancruft, please check it and see if I have managed to improve it. Otherwise, please tell me how I can fix it. <3 bunny 23:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It's still a relatively vague topic, and I don't think any amount of editing will be able to change that.--WaltCip 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge; the three main map types can be summarized in a single paragraph and merged into the main article, and should also be referenced. Marasmusine 12:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft. Herostratus 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge Standard map types need to be included in main article, possibly custom types. The rest is useless cruft. SirBob42 05:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Trim and Merge, same as Marasmusine and SirBob. Some mention of the maps must be made, because this is an important and popular game, of which the maps make up a big part. But no more than three or four paragraphs in the main article - definitely not a whole article - is all that is needed. I'm going to watch this page; if consensus is "trim and merge," I will gladly help with the trimming process. Thanks, Goldfritter 12:32, 18 April 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.