Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day of Defeat maps

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 Redirect to Day of Defeat. The Placebo Effect (talk) How's my editing? Please contribute to my editor review. 11:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Day of Defeat maps

Day of Defeat maps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a game guide. SkyWalker (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Well written article, not at all written as a game guide, but rather exemplary for an article about game maps. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry adding list of maps is like adding list of units. It is clearly a game guide. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Proof? Source? Policy? No. It's not a game guide just because you say it is one. We go by the context of the text. Is it telling people how to be better at DoD? No it's not. Not a game guide. Is it outlining the relative strengths and weaknesses of the maps? No. It's not. Not a game guide. You might want to go review exactly what a game guide is, before asserting that well written articles are one. Also, check out other articles on lists. Lists are perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia. We even have categories for "featured lists".⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the list of maps. From what i see the article. It has list of maps and huge repository of links. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It's an article about DoD maps. Of course it has a list of maps. It's a very well organized and informative list. And the repository of links is not that huge, compared to some, and if you think it's too big, then pare it down instead of deleting the entire article. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 15:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOT. A list of game maps, custom game maps, links to develop game maps, links to download game maps, source code information for game maps and a list of game map objectives ... and this isn't a game guide? Err, no; it doesn't stop being a game guide, in like fashion, just because it is well written.  RGTraynor  16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
It stops being a game guide, because it's not a guide to the game. It's a descriptive article about maps for one of the most popular online FPS games out there. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Maps are not part of the game? This article does not, in fact, give you information on where to find, where to learn to create, and some details about doing so, elements of this game? I'm happy to hear it has been edited down to remove those elements.  RGTraynor  18:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
RGTraynor, how is this article a "game guide" and the article Day of Defeat: Source *not* a game guide? --Pixelface (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is not a walkthrough or strategy guide ("The best sniping position on Donner is blah blah blah", "The best machine gunner position on Avalanche is so and so") and thus not a game guide. This is not an instruction manual and does not contain advice. This is a sub-article of the articles Day of Defeat and Day of Defeat: Source. The policy that the nominator refers to is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook." and this article is none of those things. The nominator gives an invalid reason for deletion. I would definitely appreciate it if this article was userfied if an admin ever deletes it.

--Pixelface (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, No i did not. I gave a valid reason why this article has to be deleted. It is you who have failed to read WP:NOT and Video games guidelines. Here is what i see:
  1. . The map objectives is already found on this article Day of Defeat.
  2. . The map structure can be moved too the main article it does not need a separate article. It can be transwikied.
  3. . The big list of maps and external links MUST be removed. Wikipedia is not the place for this.

Now the recall. The map objective is found in DOD. The map structure can be transwiki to wikia or strategy wiki. Now that this two is removed. The map list violates wikipedia rules. Now the article is empty and it can be removed :). Have i made myself clear?. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete for a number of reasons. It's a well written article, but I don't think it's appropriate content for a number of reasons:
    • The article does not use any independent third-party sources to assert notability of the subject.
    • Map Structure section is far too detailed - it does read like a technical specification or manual.
    • List of maps - there's nothing to indicate why each map is notable. Are they used in competition? Are they particularly popular? See Defense of the Ancients.
    • Custom Maps - why are these maps notable? What makes them important?
    • Source Maps - again, what makes these notable? Why are they important?
    • External Links - this is rapidly becoming a linkfarm and adds to the overall manual or guide feel. Why are they all needed?
It may be possible to transwikify this article, or merge the key points into Day of Defeat, but without sourcing to demonstrate why each map here is important, I can't see it standing as a standalone article. --Gazimoff (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As a sub-article of Day of Defeat and Day of Defeat: Source, articles for two notable videogames, this list doesn't have to assert notability. And each item does not have to be notable — notability does not apply to article content. Also, many of these maps are fairly popular, as can be seen on the official website and its archives. --Pixelface (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If possible, could you help me locate the policy on inhereted notability? I've seen the exact opposite of this argument used elsewhere and would like to get this one cleared up. I still think it's going into technical guide or manual territory (WP:NOT#MANUAL) in places, as well as placing undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) on the subject. Even if notability can be inhereted, there's still an issue of verifiability (WP:V) (no sources are cited), as policy indicates that articles should not rely primarily on self-published sources (WP:SELFPUB). I agree that Day of Defeat is a notable videogame in it's own right, but I think this article is going into too much detail.--Gazimoff (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to Day of Defeat. A (surprisingly) very well written article, I don't think that it violates WP:NOT, but it just doesn't assert any sort of real-world notability. faithless (speak) 10:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No independent notability (WP:N), unreferenced (WP:V), indiscriminate listing (WP:LISTCRUFT) and linkfarming to boot (WP:NOT#LINK). Marasmusine (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete and redirect to Day of Defeat if possible some infos from this article may be merged to Day of Defeat , i would have done it but in not into this game world so a experienced person may do it . yup this article is well written --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2008 (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.