Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Dozer Build

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus --malathion ^talk 02:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three_Dozer_Build

• Delete Not really a 'strategy' at all, as the decision to build two 'dozers' rather than three does not have nearly the same effect in C&C Generals as the article makes out. Not separate enough from the game to deserve its own article, not important enough in the game to deserve inclusion in the article about the game Cynical 13:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Earlier today, I did a major reorganisation of this page to make it more encylcopaedic and factually accurate. Firstly, the two v three dozer thing is of massive importance - have you ever played the game online? It is one of the first decisions the player makes, ans is thus key to his/her future success. It clearly is a strategy by any reasonable definition of the word. The stuff about separate and important I leave to others to decide. Batmanand 17:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
• I am dubious that a particular strategy in a computer game, even a quite popular one, ought to be in a separate article. Delete or Merge into an article about the game as a whole, unless there is significant evidence that this has becoem a metaphore and has significant usage outside the context of this particular game. DES ^(talk) 18:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

More Information You could cookie-cut this page into just about any recent strategy game (Dawn of War et al), replacing the name of the 'build unit'. It's not specific to Generals, so it can't be merged, and doesn't have significant usage outside of the game so is undeserving of its own article Cynical 18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A strategy element for a single game does not strike me as notable, and an article that attempts to teach such a strategy, for any game verges on WP:NOT. strategies common to many games, such as rushing deserve articles, and perhaps a strategy such as this could be merged into a similar page. --Icelight 21:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Carnildo 23:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I am interested as to where on 'What Wikipedia is not' you found "Wikipedia is not a strategy guide" Batmanand 08:53, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete And if there isn't a 'Wikipedia Is Not a Strategy Guide' then we should add it now. DJ Clayworth 16:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep, useful illustration of game strategy. Kappa 17:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Pure Pwnage.  Grue  11:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Valid entry on game strategy, we have other articles on wikipedia like this so why would the discussion be any different to keep this? The reorginsation of the article has done it justice. Also, as Cynical said, this strategy could be applied to many RTS games by just replacing the word 'dozer', as such merging it would not be a great idea. --Vanguard 13:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is not a strategy guide, this is an encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an often used strategy, and is as mentioned also used as a noun to call someone by, as is newb or n00b. This should be no different as those listings remain. --GenDeathRaiser 06:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment Pure Pwnage is, but 'Three Dozer Build' is definitely not. Is there anyone here who has ever been called a 'three dozer build' when playing Generals? Cynical 07:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason that a very good encyclopaedia should not refer to popular computer game strategies, just as a good encyclopaedia would detail common chess openings, tactics in poker, or formations in football. Surely, it is the strength, rather than the weakness, of Wikipedia that it includes such a breadth of information? Bastin8 15:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not educational in anyway, therefore useless to Wikipedia. Stereoface
• Keep. I've never played the game, but I found the article informative Rast 05:46, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Strategy of any kind is a massive field. Stereoface, please define educational. First, Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - C&CG:ZH players included. Second, it is not useless to Wikipedia. Wikipedia should encompass the whole of human experience. Postscript: I have been called a tridozer, though not a three dozer build(er). -Anonymous Coward, 2027 hours local, 7 Aug 05. Victoria, BC, Canada.
  • Invalid You have to register an account and login to participate in VfD Cynical 13:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Anons are allowed to participate in Vfd, I have reversed your striking out of the contribution. Closing admins will decide how much if any weight should be given to their votes. Please don't bite the newbies. Kappa 13:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-- Admittedly, the Page has issues, but I think that if someone were to take the time to overhaul it we could get a page that describes the use of building units in RTS type games. It has potential, just not in its current form. TomStar81 03:10, 9 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.