Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Dozer Build (2nd nomination)

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 KEEP. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 03:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three_Dozer_Build

Strategy Is Invalid and Misleading. It is notable in the sense that it was referenced by Pure Pwnage but the people who created this wiki have obviously missed the satire and irony present in their films. This phrases 'common uses' are practically non-existant outside of said film series. This should be deleted and merged with Pure Pwnage if needed. Full analysis at Talk:Three_Dozer_Build Borgs8472 17:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

See the previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Dozer Build - Mike Rosoft 19:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have. The votes are based on thinking that a strategy mentioned in a satircal film is an actual strategy, which it's not Borgs8472 21:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Please only make relevant comments to the VfD. Batmanand 01:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Google hits make it fairly plain that this is a joke term, per Borgs8472. Merge if there's anything worth having. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per reasons in previous nomination. Batmanand 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the reasons in the previous nomination. TomStar81 03:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the reasons in the previous nomination. Bastin8 01:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the reasons in the previous nomination. People know what it is, it's a tactic which can be used in ZH, Pure Pwnage just made it more noticable. I know this isn't the best source, but these guys seem to know what it's talking about, even if they do find it funny that there's an article on it. If the tactic is used commonly then why can't it have it's own article? The simple matter is, it's a strategy which can be used, and the information available for it shows that quite clearly. --Vanguard 04:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding an actual reference. However it's not a common term, the strategy is neither a noob tactic nor ineffective. A further example, if I were to make a wiki on 'pawn to king 4' in a chess game, and claim that people call such players noobs and that that tactic will nearly always lose you the game, that would be comparable to the wiki in question Borgs8472 01:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Factual incorrectness is not a reason to delete a page (fix it instead). 2. The "pawn to king 4" example is irrelevant, as it is not a "tactic" and there is already a page on chess openings. Batmanand 01:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but the term is 'generally' used to refer to new players, it's only saying how the word can be used as well as being used for the name of a tactic. Words have different meanings, they can mean different things when applied to different areas. Further more, if the term is ingrained in the games online culture then surely it has a right to be here? It may not be used all that often but that doesn't mean it isn't used as a derogortory term, or (as the rest of the article clearly states) as a tactic.

Pure Pwnage takes the mick out of gaming culture, which is why it picked up on this. If gaming can be seen as a culture then terms like these can be successfully applied to it.

It seems to me that you seem to be more bothered about the 'Usage' section. The rest of the article simply describes the tactic. As I've said, that's how some people in the game may choose to use it, just like we use words like 'cool' for different meanings. If the tactic is seen to be commonly used by new people then some gamers have formed some sort of cult in rejecting the tactic, and as an online gamer myself I wouldn't find that all that surprising.

The 'Usage' is basically explaining that the term can be used in this way, and if it is then I say no reason why it should offend. If your bothered about it then, by all means, rewrite the section to make it more understandable. --Vanguard 21:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll rewrite it, but since there will be no sources for 'common usages' of terms, I'll end up deleting them Borgs8472 22:32, 10 November 2005 (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.