Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Advance Wars

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. Anyone who wishes to transwiki it - just axe me! - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units in Advance Wars

Gamecruft and game-guide. This article is unverified and unverifiable, there's no source for any of this information in this article, other than the implicit primary source, and the units of Advance Wars are not widely discussed outside of how-to guides. Additionally, a great deal of this article is itself a how-to guide: the merits and flaws of various weapons are constantly touted.

Relevant precedent in other AFDs: two weapon lists for the Resident Evil series, a list of weapons in Cave Story, and a list of Pokémon attacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 00:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (raves/rants) 01:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Gamecruft. Neat game though. Artw 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete big cruftpile. Opabinia regalis 01:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as cruft. RandyWang (raves/rants) 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into three respective articles and Units in Nintendo Wars. I'm a bit hesitant to delete it because it is in fact verifiable, though difficult, but there's no reason this information cannot be merged into those articles, especially Units in Nintendo Wars, which as a result of a decision not to merge the two apparently resulted in the removal of all "Advance Wars" unit information (though it should be noted that that article may be transwikied). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not verifiable; the only sources are going to be the game and how-to guides for the game. I'm opposed to a merge because a theoretical merged article would have all of the same problems as this article: it would still be unverified and unverifiable, and would still be a game-guide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Reviews frequently will emntion all the units, as would promo materials. Besides, you called it unverifiable, then listed several potentially sources, which seems incorrect. Ace of Sevens 03:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Both of us listed several sources where you could verify how-to info. That info doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There's little else you can say that can be verified. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Why wouldn't reviews from established sites be adequate sources to verify the info??? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Sufficient to verify that they exist? Sure. Sufficient to verify things like Orange Star tanks are M2 Bradleys and M1A1 Abrams, Blue Moon uses old Soviet T-34s (arguably 34/76) and Cold War-Era T-80s or IS3s, Green Earth sticks to Jagdpanthers and Jagdtigers/Sturmtigers while Yellow Comet relies on ancient French FT-17 models and old Soviet KV-2s? Not so much. There isn't anything you can source to a review that wouldn't be game-guide-style material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment I'm not sure if these exist, but I wouldn't be surprised if that information could be verified through interviews of some of the developers (which usually exist for large projects, but I'm not sure how well-known the game is). Either way, the basic information could be merged pending verification and deleted if finding reputable sources proves impossible. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
            • How long do we wait for this to be verified? A week? A month? A year? Why not delete unsourced content on sight, as is mentioned in WP:NOR, and replace it if it can be sourced? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Probably a week; more if sourcing is ongoing. A quick search revealed 2 reputable IGN sources and one from eToychest (no idea as to its reputability.[1] [2] [3]. To be honest, after perusing through the Units in Nintendo Wars article, it's beginning to seem less workable. The article hasn't been worked on in months and would require a total overhaul before incorporating any of this information. Before changing my vote, however, I'll wait to see if there are any editors willing to work on completely rewriting the article. I'd be willing to help, of course. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 05:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tychocat 09:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this, and Units in Nintendo Wars should go too. Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, game guide. Recury 17:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crufty gameguide stuff. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, no sourcing. Davidpdx 19:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Zos 19:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki articles like this. The Wikibooks pages about the Nintendo Wars series can use the development anyway. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Units in Nintendo Wars and Transwiki. The other article already has a Transwiki tag. It cannot be moved to Wikibooks, as gaming material must be deleted from there. Hopefully someone will begin cleaning Category:Move to gaming wiki. -- ReyBrujo 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into something. It's gotta go somewhere. As the original author of this article, I'd be inclined to say keep, but I have really no way to justify a keep, and too many people are saying delete to sway consensus to keep. Keep When writing it, I tried to make it not be a game guide by using as little statsitical info as possible (which was eventually added in and later removed). The thing with video game articles is, the source is pretty much always the game, especially when talking about the actual game itself. Since apparently electronic media can't really count as a source (which I guess is understandable), most game articles have to include content such as reviews or things like development history, with "valid" sources such as books, web links, magazines, etc. that count.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gakon5 (talk • contribs)
  • Add comment: I'd like to point out two reasons why I think this couldn't be considered a game guide, and thus should be kept:
  • Accesability: What I mean is, even if you had never played Advance Wars you could still get something out of it; and if you did it's basically all stuff you learn from just looking at the unit summaries in-game. Heck, it really has little value to someone who's familiar with the game's units already; the article has very little in the area of solid tactical strategy (some spots, such as the Recon section, do have some game guide-ish things in them).
  • Little statistical info: At one point in this article's lifespan tables with statstical info about each unit were added in [4] I later removed the tables on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a game guide. I think at that point it had probably crossed the line into game guide territory (although there was still very little in the way of things such as game strategies). The article basically just provides a general summary of what each unit does (ie it shoots this, it's more powerful than this, etc).
I don't know if that's going to sway anyone at all, but just throwing out my opinions is all. --gakon5 23:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Units in Nintendo Wars, which is distinctly not a game guide, but compares the units on a historical basis within the series and is relevant to the design of the game series. --SevereTireDamage 04:50, 17 July 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.