Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m /* de_dust, cs_siege, cs_assault, cs_italy, cs_militia, cs_office, cs_estate, de_aztec, de_inferno, de_nuke, de_cbble, as_oilrig, fy_iceworld, [[de_ |
No edit summary |
||
Line 58:
*'''Delete''' this too crufty by far. Belongs in a CS-wiki or something, certainly [[WP:NOT|not]] here. --[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">E</font>]][[User:EivindFOyangen|ivind]][[User talk:EivindFOyangen|<sup>t</sup>]][[Special:Emailuser/EivindFOyangen|<sup>@</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/EivindFOyangen|<sup>c</sup>]] 23:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
:*1) Cruft is not sufficient reason to delete, 2) You link to WP:NOT, but what exactly in there applies here? --[[User:Varco|Varco]] 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong Keep''', or alternately merge into "Counterstrike Hostage Maps," "Counterstrike Assassination Maps," etc. as suggested further above. These articles are useful and interesting to the literally hundreds of thousands of counterstrike players. I know that I have looked at them in the past myself. I liked the comment above, these indeed may be very geeky articles... but it's geeks that get the most mileage out of Wikipedia! Stop being elitist and accept the fact that Wikipedia is a repository for MUCH esoteric knowledge that would probably not make it into a print encylopedia. This may fit the original mission statements or what whiny, power-hungry deletionists believe in, but it's what the site has evolved into. This is _not_ a bad thing. Wikipedia has much well-written information on extremely specialized, non-mainstream topics, which is part of what makes it such a valuable resource. The reason this is a "Strong Keep" instead of just a "keep" is because I believe deleting this article would be only be serving to strengthen the bias of certain wikipedia editors. (The Deletionistas) [[User:Tmorrisey|Tmorrisey]] 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
| |||