Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the Chinese
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 of the debate was Delete. Sorry, but WP:NOT is on the money. Tom, if you want a copy of this on your userspace, drop me a line via my talk page. Note that recreating this in article space will lead to speedy deletion, however. Proto||type 12:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Structures of the Chinese
Following on the heels of the deletion of one of its sister pages, I recommend this be Deleted on the grounds that wikipedia is not a game guide. --InShaneee 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per deletion of related article and its discussion — ßottesiηi (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and merge: Alright already, I get the message, enough with the AFD tags. I am working on a merge of all three strucutures pages and if you would give me a little to make some magic here I can in fact retool these pages to be more aproprietly oriented to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. TomStar81 23:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merging all three of them will only save me time on AfDing pages. The content is innapropriate no matter how it is formatted. --InShaneee 23:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I am asking for is a chance to retool the pages in such a way as to allow them to stay here. I am being more than accomodating here in an effort to find a resolution to this problem, and all I seem to be getting in return is cold shoulders. TomStar81 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean to offend you, I do appreciate your hard work here. It's simply my belief that the content is unsalvagable. --InShaneee 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- If only you believe like I believe baby in miracles, we could fly... TomStar81 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- What I am looking into at the moment is to retool all unit pages and strucuture pages into something similar in most respects to the StarCraft units and structures page. StarCraft features three factions, the same as generals, and I feel that the format present on the StarCraft U&S page, while a step down from the setup I have done here, still presents useful information to those interested in it. The catch is I have to reconcile discrepancies between the two games before I can adopt such a layout. TomStar81 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- And for the record, some of the starcraft pags are more fancrufty that this one. TomStar81 00:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- What I am looking into at the moment is to retool all unit pages and strucuture pages into something similar in most respects to the StarCraft units and structures page. StarCraft features three factions, the same as generals, and I feel that the format present on the StarCraft U&S page, while a step down from the setup I have done here, still presents useful information to those interested in it. The catch is I have to reconcile discrepancies between the two games before I can adopt such a layout. TomStar81 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- If only you believe like I believe baby in miracles, we could fly... TomStar81 23:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't mean to offend you, I do appreciate your hard work here. It's simply my belief that the content is unsalvagable. --InShaneee 23:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- All I am asking for is a chance to retool the pages in such a way as to allow them to stay here. I am being more than accomodating here in an effort to find a resolution to this problem, and all I seem to be getting in return is cold shoulders. TomStar81 23:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Merging all three of them will only save me time on AfDing pages. The content is innapropriate no matter how it is formatted. --InShaneee 23:48, 31 May 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.
