Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trainer (games)

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 by Merging to Cheating (video games). Cbrown1023 01:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trainer (games)

Trainer (games) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unreferenced article seems to serve mainly as a locus for lame edit wars over links to editors' own game hacking sites. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete There are no references whatsoever, let alone references to verifiable reliable sources. Article title too generic for Ghits to be a useful marker. Sounds like they're talking about some form of cheat code (or the mirror of cheat codes, whatever those are). The article itself isn't terribly coherent as is. --Charlene 15:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I tried to find some references for the article, but it's impossible to find any that don't just advertise a site. None provide any meaningful information on how trainers work, which is what the article needs. And as we've seen, it's a magnet for people wanting to advertise. The Kinslayer 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Yes, the article as it stands now is crap. I dunno if it can be fixed, but from my viewpoint, it's a concept that's worthwhile having an article on. That people have searched and not found anything is saddening -- perhaps Merge some of the info into some other article, perhaps a general game hacking one (that could cover everything from direct hacking to trainers to 'enhancement devices'). Not sure if there is such an article, at the moment though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A possible mergeto page is Cheating (video games). Marasmusine 17:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep you dropped a link to show how things are made as in a trainer , what if i do just that link it to a trainer tutorial ? then it has source Apache- 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) — Apache- (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment Just as a note, this user...well I'll let the contribs linked above speak for themselves. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • An external link will improve the article providing it follows the guidelines at WP:EL. Marasmusine 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, with complete rewrite The subject really should have an article, as it is a very common thing to see, but the current version is horrible. Exarion 00:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom and others. Deizio talk 00:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Cheating (video games) and delete. This stub's been around since May 05, there's nothing there which can't be shortened to fit in the cheating article and have done with it. QuagmireDog 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice versus recreation as a properly sourced article. Trainers are a fairly notable cheat program which do spring up with regularity in pretty much any game. However, the current article appears to have been abandoned and would have to be rewritten from scratch to be viable. Cheers, Lankybugger 18:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • merge to a section of cheating (video games); I agree that trainers are quite notable but this article isn't very good. — brighterorange (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge but watch out for spammish links. Asteriontalk 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to cheating (video games); the topic is noteworthy and should not be obliterated, but this article will probably remain a stub. Kurrupt3d 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable kind of software, but remove the spam. --Carioca 04:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to cheating (video games). Its definately a notable topic that needs coverage (and references!)... but the article as it stands now is crap. Clean it up, merge whats worthwhile, and give us 1 decent article!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 11:00, 12 January 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.