Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deus Ex weapons articles

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 merge, with the suggestion that the merge is more selective than a simple copy and paste. Petros471 19:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons in Deus Ex and Weapons in Deus Ex: Invisible War

Per several other similar AFDs, these two articles are once again an overdetailed description of each of a set of fictional objects, with no source for any of this information (other than the implicit primary source). It's just a paraphrasing of the manual, with brief, inane descriptions of each weapon (much of which is implicit from the name). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Links not clearly accessable. User:Yy-bo 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    What links? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    Per several other similar AFDs please include named links if possible, per consensus. User:Yy-bo 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    Um. The links are right there. I'm not sure what consensus you're referring to. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    Um as well. Usually articles in an article group are listed by name, i have definetively seen it before. Or do i get something wrong? User:Yy-bo 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge to provide comprehensiveness and adequate length, while avoiding cluttering of the main article. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge - As the person who started the Weapons in Deus Ex: Invisible War article AMIB, I fail to see how the descriptions are "inane". What seems much more "inane" are your increasingly detrimental judgement calls on this site. As for the page itself, first of all, there is more than one source, as anyone who actually cared to check can see. Second, the article is not finished yet with more info to be added. Your charge of "overdetailed" also is debatable, and as for being "a set of fictional objects", as I and many others have repeatedly said, a subject's fictionality has no bearing whatsoever on its merit as a wikipedia page - so please stop using that completely specious charge. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    When you are doing nothing more but relating the story told in a fictional work, whether in whole or in fragmentary form, you've ceased to do the work of a real-world encyclopedia. WP:NOT says this, and WP:WAF makes it doubly clear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    You sound pretty much like a manager seeking a way to criticize the employees. How much do you pay him? If nothing, let people do what they prefer. Wikipedia editors are not employees, and it is exclusively up to them to decide what section to work on. --CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    "Go away and let me have my fun" is not a reason to keep articles that don't belong in this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, but neither is "I don't like these articles for my own reasons, so instead of trying to improve them, I will just either delete them, or (if I can't get away with that) put large notifications I have personally made to point out the certain aspects I don't like at the top of each page in question." a good reason for your actions either. Also, I notice yet again that you have given a totally baseless responce to my first posting. A weapons page is not "relating the story told in a fictional work, in whole or fragmentary form", its a description of an aspect of the gameplay. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, (mostly) enclopedic descriptions of an important aspect of the games. Kappa 05:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now Article is already hudge. User:Yy-bo 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above, I like this AFD stuff

(The Bread)

    • Comment It requires deletion at some point (not encyclopedic). No immeditate need (no bad layout etc.) Probably the authors can source it to somewhere else. There is not yet a policy for it. Wiki sites are relatively new; not everyone knows this type of webhosting. Some advice can not be completely wrong. User:Yy-bo 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Bad layout is not a reason to delete an article. That it contains unencyclopedic material is, however. -- Steel 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
        • In reverse, good layout, or usage of layout, let an article appear to be a good faith creation. Probably the authors should be given advice to put it somewhere else, for instance to use external wiki hosting. User:Yy-bo 18:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete both. WP:NOT a game guide is official policy. Both of these articles are stuffed full of it, so the main Deux Ex article(s) won't benefit from a merge either. -- Steel 10:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    Sorry, but the link you provided does not say anything about a descriptive list of items from a game not being allowed. A "Game guide" would be providing information to the user to help them play the game better (i.e. "This gun is best in this situation, while this works best against this enemy"). If you're going to ban this sort of thing then should we remove all gun/enemy/level lists from all game pages? At what point do you stop? -- Grandpafootsoldier 07:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    The combat knife does slightly less damage than the crowbar, but requires less inventory space.
    The pepper spray may be used to disrupt some laser beams by spraying into the beam. This is the 'cheapest' way around security aside from avoiding the beams manually.
    With high levels of melee combat skill, the player can use the blade to destroy weaker robots. With the combat strength enhancement, the player can use the blade to batter down most doors and destroy military robots.
    It is particularly useful on sniper rifles, the precision of which is usually insufficient.
    Downsides include its slow refire rate and the high cost of each shot in UA.
    Heck, the only sources for the IW list are from game guides. And all that's from a quick skim of both articles. How are they not game guides? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I admit some of those examples you cited are getting into "guide" territory, but that still doesn't justify axing the whole article. There is often a fine line between describing an object in game and giving advice on how it should best be used. That calls for discretionary alteration, not outright deletion. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:26, 12 September 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.