Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of StarCraft (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. Sr13 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gameplay of StarCraft

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Gameplay of StarCraft Articles for deletion/Gameplay of StarCraft (2nd nomination)
Gameplay of StarCraft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Straight-up game guide information, written in an entirely in-universe perspective. It also lacks third-party, reliable sources that have commented on StarCraft's gameplay. We are not GameFAQs. There is nothing in this article that can't already be covered by a short section in a StarCraft game article. THe text of this article is so thoroughly in-universe that it can't be salvagable. hbdragon88 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. this article needs some significant rewrites and a lot of wikifying, but I think the subject matter has a place in Wikipedia. We should work hard to change the article before giving up and deleting it. Lorangriel 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been well over a year since the last AFD. hbdragon88 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
      •    Please read WP:NOEFFORT. Morgan Wick 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • That is a legitimate argument, but by that same token isn't it time to get rid of an article that has been around for a year and a half and still hasn't been sourced? Trusilver 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, definite game-guide and WP:NOT material. Arkyan • (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete First of all, the same "We can clean this up" argument was made last year when the first AfD was done, and it hasn't been. Secondly, is this Wikipedia or GameFAQs? The article reads as a manual/strategy guide, both which do not belong here. Wildthing61476 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has a lot of accurate and useful information, even if it's difficult to get a reliable 3rd-party-source. Most of it's contents aren't the boring details of a manual. It just goes over basic areas of Starcraft that aren't obvious to beginners, and alot of this info isn't even in strategy guides. If the article was just lists of unit stats or walkthroughs for single player then i would agree. Lx Rogue 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    •    Not all "USEFUL" things belong in an encyclopedia. WP:RS and WP:NOT#HOWTO are policy. I would point you to our cousin project Wikia. Morgan Wick 04:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Useful or not, the article is very different from how everyone is describing it. It's not just a manual or FAQ; it has relevant information about gameplay and mechanics. Do the articles on basketball or poker describe basic methods of play outside of the rules? I'm sure they do and this is the same thing here.Lx Rogue 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Even if we were to grant that point, it still needs to be sourced. Morgan Wick 08:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree, but lack of sources alone isn't a good reason for deletion. Lx Rogue 09:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • You have five days. If you can't find reliable sources in five days, then yes, it is a good reason for deletion (see WP:DP). Without sources, the page simply seems to be original research which is a BIG no-no. Morgan Wick 09:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
          • An article that is unable to find sources after a year? That is an excellent reason for deletion. Trusilver 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Well there are sources out there; will people be willing to keep this if it gets sourced? The argument that it's a game guide could apply to hundreds of articles out there. I was under the impression the purpose of the policy is to stop generic walkthroughs and tables of statistics.
              • That's acceptable. My biggest objection to this article concerns a WP:OR issue, If the article was properly sourced, I would change my position to a weak keep, because while I still have notability concerns, they aren't bad enough to push deletion. Trusilver 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I appreciate the hard work that the authors have obviously made to create this article, it fails WP:N. As has been mentioned above, Wikipedia is not GameFAQs and should not be treated as such. The article is unsourced and has remained that way for quite a long time and as such makes me suspect original research. Trusilver 19:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsalvageably game guide, violates WP:VG/GL. Andre (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for game guides. It's useful is not a valid reason to keep the article. -- Kesh 02:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki-no quick solution.Kfc1864 10:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure, 100% game guide. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a game guide. Aaronk24 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge into StarCraft. This isn't just a game guide, as it includes more than just specific strategies. It illustrates some core principles of the game (StarCraft is well-known as an extraordinarily balanced game, and this article explains why). Moreover, it gives details about the game itself rather than teaching readers how to play well. If people are keen on removing this page, I suggesting paring it down and merging it into StarCraft. Ratiocinate 14:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    If there is sourced information that can be added to the StarCraft article, do it. 24.180.145.210 23:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As per above. --SkyWalker 17:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:26, 7 July 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.
Languages