Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures

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. Rje 04:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warcraft III units and structures

Delete for consistency with StarCraft units and structures (AFD, deletion was also endorsed in Deletion Review), Age of Empires units and structures (AFD), Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures (AFD), Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry (AFD) and many many more. Punkmorten 10:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Hard to argue with the solid precedent here. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I like the article (I also made recent minor changes), I agree that it should be deleted for consistency. --ToKnow 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Unless we are gonig to delete Rook (chess) I do not see why ones games pieces are to be deleted and another kept. Keeping with a precedent that is only based on peoples opinions and majority is hardly a reason to delete anything. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and a good precedent. Why everyone keeps bringing up chess in these AfDs I'll never get, but see the above AfD discussions for responses to that comparison. -- H·G (words/works) 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Destroy per nom. You destoryed the one from my favorite game-AOE. :P GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 17:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Split and Merge into Humans (Warcraft), Undead (Warcraft), Night Elf (Warcraft) and Orc (Warcraft)? Starcraft has the information in its race articles. Not sure about this one. --ColourBurst 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a chess player, I would be very offended if someone tried to delete the Rook (chess) article. As such, I think the Rook defense is a solid one here. Wikipedia is not paper. Themindset 18:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personally very opposed, but by precedent there's not much choice any more. I also put a prod on, Chess_strategy_and_tactics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.61.46.16 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-25 18:54:04 (UTC)
    Comment: please review WP:POINT. Chess strategy has had a large amount of scholarship devoted to it. Just the game theoretic aspects of Chess make it notable, as a good case can be made that the modern field of Game Theory was motivated in part by a desire to understand Chess. Until Warcraft achieves anything remotely comparable in scope, any equivalences drawn between the two games is fallacious. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    CommentScope of what, you said "a good case can be made" that means its not a fact but possibly can be argued. So until someone starts arguing that Warcraft is responcible for mathematical theories it cant be kept? There is probably more people playing Warcraft then chess at any given moment. Furthermore just because someone writes game guides on chess doesnt mean there " is a large ammount of scholarship devoted to it", There are tons of game guides on Final Fantasy as well. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: That may be true - but then why is the WP:NOT policy being cited instead of the Notablity guidelines? If WP:NOT is being used, then all of these articles constitute "how-to"s and are therefore not suitable for wikipedia in any form, regardless of their popularity, scholarship, or references. This is a *very* different reason than saying that they are not notable enough. All I'm saying is that WP:NOT should not be used in these cases, or there really is no way to differentiate. If the rationale for deletion is that sources cannot be found to verify the information, or if they are not notable enough for coverage, then fine, delete them. 129.61.46.16 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
  • Delete - per nom and Kaustuv. Wickethewok 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and I have to say, I'm on the fence about some of the chesscruft. GassyGuy 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Split and merge I agree with Colourburst. His opinions makes a lot of sense. -ScotchMB 00:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a computer game guide, and Warcraft is to chess as advertising jingle composers are to Beethoven -- GWO
  • Comment. So does importance of a topic take precedence over the WP:NOT policy? 129.61.46.16 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
  • Comment Would we then be able to delete Baseball bat as its a game piece that does not date back too long ago and really hasnt been the subject of scholarly books much like people argue for chess. Or is someone willing to finally openly state its because they are videogames that they are not treated with equal footing? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How has a baseball bat not been around a long time? Also, they are a generic product manufactured by many individual and separate corporations, unlike, say, a "Crypt Fiend". Wickethewok 17:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I treat video games on an equal footing. If anyone nominates a video game that has stood the test of time in the same way that baseball and chess have, I will gladly vote KEEP. And if someone adds lots and lots of articles about a modern board game, or card game (say Magic items in Magic:The Gathering, or a page for every type of spaceship in Star Fleet Battles ... then I'll say DELETE. It's not about videogames, its about new and shiny versus time-worn) -- GWO
  • Comment That's all well and good and a legitimate reason - but it doesn't hold up if the WP:NOT a game guide policy is being used as a rationale for deletion instead of the notability guidelines. The "how-to" policy leaves no room for importance of the subject; if it is used as the basis of a nomination and the subsequent deletion, then it absolutely opens the door to deletions of chess and baseball bat articles; that will remain the case unless WP:NOT is changed to say that "wikipedia is not a how-to for the new and shiny, but may be a how-to for the time-worn". All I've been saying in these debates is that we should stop arguing whether they fail WP:NOT and instead argue over their notability. 68.106.198.28 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
  • That's a very...selective way of quoting..."Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." Video game guides are given as an example but are certainly not the only one here - it specifically says it should not give instruction or advice of any kind. The rook article and most of the chess articles do precisely that, if we take the precedent being used for video game articles, which is simply stating the existence and function of a game piece. 68.106.198.28 01:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Josh
  • Comment. If we leave this article undeleted, then it would not make sense to leave Age of Empires units and structures (AFD) [and many others] deleted (assuming that consistency is perfection). --ToKnow 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete excessive gamecruft per nom and precedent. --Wine Guy Talk 09:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 11:05, 27 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.