Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straferunning

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 no consensus to delete or merge all. Suggest further discussion about merging some (on their talk pages), as there seems to be some support for that. W.marsh 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straferunning

Straferunning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Fails WP:N, because it has not been covered by multiple, independent, reliable sources. The only mentions of this term are in fansites of the games mentioned in the article, and web forums.
  • Large amounts of original research, with nothing attributed to any source at all. The OR here is not a straightforward mathematical calculation or logical deduction based on fully attributed data that neither changes the significance of the data nor requires additional assumptions beyond what is in the source.
  • Wikipedia is not a game guide, and not an instruction manual. The article writes how to use a specific technique appearing in a very limited number of games.

I am also nominating the following related pages with the same arguments as above:

Rocket jumping (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Quad damage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
BFG10K (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The WP:NOT argument applies to the above three as well, though they are all less of an instruction manual and more of a game guide.

-- User:Krator (t c) 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to make an umbrella nomination, then I also suggest:
  • Comment: So what's the difference between an instruction manual and a game guide again? It seems to me that these topics all deal with various aspects of videogame physics design (specifically FPS's), but beyond that.... Google gives "straferunning" only 1,200 hits, at least half of which are fansites and/or forums. The only way to disprove original research is by referencing a reliable source on the matter, which none of these articles do.--Stratadrake 11:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: Agreed on listing the others as well. --User:Krator (t c) 14:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all; too many to make a single decision on. While some of these articles may constitute some degree of game-guide or original research, you're trying to bundle too many different articles together. BFG10K and Quad damage, for example, represent completely different topics from the other articles being nominated. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: All of the articles listed are subject to the three arguments above for deletion. That they represent slightly different topics is not a reason to keep them. However, I would be willing to split the AfD between BFG10K and Quad damage, and the other topics. It would just be a matter of copying the reasoning, but if it helps speed up the process ... --User:Krator (t c) 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep BFG10K though I'd be happy with it as a redirect/disambig to the relevant games. Undecided on the rest. I'll have to look at them individually. FrozenPurpleCube 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment This is a discussion, not a vote. What are your arguments for keeping? --User:Krator (t c) 22:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, gee, I'd be happy to say that it's a likely search term for a reasonably distinctive concept within the game, and as such, should be covered in some way. But I thought that was obvious from the prior discussion above. For the rest, I'm still thinking. So you'll have to wait. FrozenPurpleCube 22:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
PS, it might help to leave off the commentary and simply ask questions. Certainly it's a concern that many people do treat AFD's as a vote, but something about your response just feels patronizing to me. FrozenPurpleCube 22:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all and if wanted, and relist separately& I would suggest selectively. The articles though on similar subjects have been written differently with participation from many different editors (varying by article), with varying amounts of detail and various approaches to the subject. Although none of the articles are either instruction manuals or game guides--they do not talk primarily about how to play particular games. The specifics however, can undoubtedly be sourced from published guides. If any about moves in a single game, those could be directed, but most of them are about more than one. This is one of the areas WP has a well-deserved reputation for covering in depth.DGG 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, some of the articles clearly do fall under the territory of "game guide". Quad damage, for example does nothing but provide an in-depth description of a power-up occuring in Quake -- and dare I say that the article is actually more in-depth than you would see in the average printed Quake strategy guide, and certainly more than would be described in the game's own manual. --Stratadrake 05:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Either keep' or merge and reduce to relevant parts. The doomsday is here! No one really listened to me when I rambled about this, like, a year ago, and here we are now, in AfD, like I predicted! I should have AfDd most of our computer game terminology articles back then because someone was going to do that anyway, but heck, no use to look back now ... You know, this is exactly the sort of material that is is in grey area what comes to Wikipedia. It's highly relevant to computer gaming in general (no, this stuff isn't specific to one game - these are generally stuff that's exhibited by many modern game engines). It's stuff that's good candidate for encyclopaedic discussion. Yet, when you really start thinking of it... where's the darn sources? Where are the papers - or even random websites by Quake/Doom/Etc sourcedivers - that discuss straferunning in detail? The answer is simple: We need the articles by yesterday because they're not discussed anywhere, but heck, we can't write about this stuff because there's no sources. So I have to say this: Merge whatever sourceable parts you can to some other article. Keep the unsourced material in article history in case we get, like, a Wikiversity research project devoted to these phenomena, or something. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly knowledgeable on these subjects, and am confident that I can find sufficient (online) sources to make a solid article. There are plenty of sites that cover the games that exhibit these techniques, and there are also some speedrunning websites that have more technical information. "Bunny hopping" in particular has been analyzed to death in some communities. If we do, though, I would also support a merge. —msikma (user, talk) 10:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Merge or Redirect I think these articles are relevant. But if they are to be deleted please let me move them to a gaming wiki before they get deleted so they can be used as reference. --Cs california 23:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Would references outside a video game context help? For example 'rocket jumping' is an optional rule in the board game Frag. Marasmusine 08:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Though maybe the nomination bundle isn't the best, all the articles listed lack sources and look like OR or at best neologisms. Wickethewok 09:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all or relist individually. These articles are too different for a blanket nomination. I also believe they are easily attributable, since many there are many independent publications about (especially) the Quake series of games. I don't see them as game guides at all, because they are not how-to articles (at least, the ones I looked at). — brighterorange (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. — brighterorange (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all: Too broad a collection of articles to be comprehensively discussed. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Straferunning. It's a popular feature in FPSs. And the article has sufficient info. カラム 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I might recommend renominating some of these articles individually later, as I've rarely seen mass nominations turn out as anything other than "no consensus". Among these, I'd probably argue to delete Ramp jump and Conc jumping, but keep Rocket jumping, for example. JavaTenor 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Conc jumping looks like a reasonable merge to Rocket jumping, as it just describes a specific-game variant of the generic "blow self up with explosives to jump higher" concept. Ramp jump looks pretty obscure (it only references QuakeWorld), so it would probably get deleted if it were nominated on its own. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all, minus BFG10K, which could be merged into the actual BFG 9000 article; rocket/bunny jumping, telefragging, and everything else is game guide material, as well as strafe jumping.Aramjm 01:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all except Bunny hopping, I think its notable enough with over 1 million ghits --Exarion 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Bunny hopping, Rocket jumping, Telefrag, BFG10K because they are common concepts in number of different games; Merge Quad damage to Power-up, Conc jumping to Rocket jumping, Strafe-jumping to Bunny hopping (they are different techniques using the same basic engine mechanics); Delete Straferunning and Ramp jump because they are not widespread. --Voidvector 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Merge or Redirect these articles, as they are useful and common terms describing actions in video games and should be represented in some way. Blademaster313 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all or Merge. As per Blademaster313 and カラ. —Visor (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also, define "multiple, independent, reliable sources". Do you seriously expect someone to write an academic essay on BFG 10,000? Mikael GRizzly 21:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the point. No reliable source is going to discuss the BFG 10,000. That is why it's not notable, which is a criteria for deletion. See WP:NOTABILITY. --Teggles 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist seperately, articles are too different to be nominated together, even if they violate the same things. Also, to Mikael GRizzly, please see the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:NOT, for something to be included it does, in fact need "multiple, independent, reliable sources", though perhaps not academic essays. --PresN 03:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All - They all provide relatively accurate information about their respective subjects. Whilst references are needed for all of them, there is no reason to delete them. Any important information which could be innaccurate and is not common knowledge should be edited out. – ARC GrittTALK 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep All per ARC Gritt --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 02:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all except BFG10K (merge that one into BFG9000), merge articles - other articles are notable enough to warrant inclusion, and should later be put up for merge. They are all [competitive] video game techniques in the context of first-person shooters, so one umbrella article may suffice. —msikma (user, talk) 09:59, 20 May 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.