Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn; keep without prejudice to any further nomination by any party after one month from closure. Metamagician3000 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structures of the GLA

edit

Manual of little importance to either the wikipedia project or its parent page Lakhim 00:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woah. I never knew I was going to create such a firestorm. My main point is that as it stands the article provides nothing to the wikipedia project that isn't present in a manual already and is far too focused and technical on this one topic. We're an encyclopedia here, not a guide for those who want to play C&C generals. It is a fine game, but as it stands the article is too far gone for saving. Perhaps a better idea would be to revise it to point how all of the GLA structures are different from the other sides, but as of now it's simply a laundry list of buildings with no attempt to point out how this is notable. To TomStar: Would it be an amicable solution to simply combine all of the structures lists into one page and simply point out the basic differences between the structures/how they affect strategy? I think this would solve most problems with a manual and better preserve the thrust of the "Structures of the *blank*" pages --Lakhim 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we can merge the pages togather. I have no beef about rearranging the pages in that manner, so long as the important information is preserved. When we chose to design the pages in this manner it was with the intent that they be flexiable to adopt to wikipedia's standards and practices. This option would be vastly prefered over the mass deletion of relevant material. I would invite you to add comments and suggestions about the layout of the articles on my talk page or any of the other talk pages for users who, like me, have been involved in this overhaul from the start. Your input would be apreciated so that we can avoid these problems from the start, rather than raise a hornets nest of fury over them later. It saves everyone time and grief. TomStar81 01:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't support that, nor do I think the majority of this vote currently do. Again, this seems like more something for one of the gaming wikis. --InShaneee 04:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Some delete votes prior to 9 may 2006 may not be reflective of a vote on the compromise reached between myself and Tomstar/the GLA editors. This is not to say that all delete votes are invalid before then, but rather that they were cast before an agreement to radically change the nature of the article was reached. Some users, however, are still requesting deletion despite this agreement. --Lakhim 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE NOTE: User:TomStar81 has posted notices to six users' talk pages (specifically those of gamers) alerting them to this page's deletion debate and urging them to save it. See: User_talk:Mrbowtie#Deletion_Emergancy.21. Aplomado talk 07:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to explain. This was part of a much broader overhaul that the six of us agreed to. I have been creating the new templates and associated pages, and they have been helping to clean up the spelling, fix the grammar, check the facts, and so forth. Given that the six of us have put so much work into the article(s) it seems only fair that they be alerted to this sudden development. If you wish to prove this you can check the talk pages and histories of the users I have contacted; all have had a big role in this new design. I am not out to inflate the vote in my favor, and I understand fully that in the end all articles are subject to community consensus. If I have gone against a policy or rule by alerting these six users than I sincerly apologise, and as per the law of equivilent exchange I will accept whatever punishment the community deems nessicary. TomStar81 08:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Aplomado talk 00:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Aplomado Bhoeble 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. RobLinwood 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
  • Comment that this article seems to have about as much notability (or lack thereof) as almost all of the other articles linked to from its infobox (or is there another name for template boxes at the bottom of a page?). TheProject 03:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is not a video game guide, this is a valid page listing units that appear in a video game, much the same as one would list characters from a TV show or list songs sung by an artist in a certain year. Furthermore, if this page is deleted then what will happen is that all of these units will end up with individual pages, creating a massive train wreck that no one wants to see. I will also point out that many of these articles are in the process of being polished up by the community at the moment, and that this design layout was felt to work best for the presentation of relevant information involving the Command & Conquer series of games. If you delete this page, what will happen to the rest of these articles and the articles linked by the template:C&C? It is a philosophy of mine that one is not entitled to strike down an idea unless he or she can propose a solution. If you have a better idea, I am all ears. TomStar81 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: TomStar81 is the creator and primary contributor of this article. Aplomado talk 06:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been asked by the creator of this article to vote in favor of keeping the article. Aplomado talk 07:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been asked by the creator of this article to vote in favor of keeping the article. Aplomado talk 07:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if videogames are to be included in Wikipedia (and they are by precedent), they should at least be limited to a single article. I suggest moving the content to another site, if that is allowed by Wikipedia's license. -- Kjkolb 07:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could merge some of the pages, I suppose, but the pictures are a problem. The Commons does not allow fair use images, and if the article(s) are deleted then there is a rather high possibility that the images will also have to go. User:Run! would be a good person to talk to regarding the merging of the material into a single article, but when he tried that with the C&C series several users (including me) gave him a very hard time over it. TomStar81 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're pictures from a videogame. I'm sure the commons can manage very well without them. -- GWO
  • Delete nerdcruft. -- GWO
  • Delete cruft. Appears to violate WP:NOT, plus anyone who cares already knows. Just zis Guy you know? 10:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Could someone tell me how this article differs from the numerous ones concerning Pokémon and why they are kept if this one is not? NB This is not a comment: it is a question. Tyrenius 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment : I have no idea. The Pokemon articles are awful, and someone suitably bold should just merge them. But the answer to a plethora of godawful Pokemon articles is not more godawful articles about other topics... Kind of like how the fact Ross Youngs is somehow in the Hall of Fame doesn't mean they should induct Billy Southworth. If the best argument to keep something is that its better than the worst articles in wikipedia, it probably shouldn't be kept. It's hard to correct the Poke-screwup, but that doesn't mean we should keep screwing up similarly. -- GWO
  • Strong Delete Gamecruft² --eivindt@c 11:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rewrite so its less of a guide and more a factual presentation of the structures. --Knucmo2 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gamecruft, agree with GWO on the Pokemon argument. · rodii · 12:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far, far more detail than we could possibly need on Command & Conquer: Generals. Or any other game, for that matter. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will state now that I am one of the ones TomStar81 contacted. I don't have much of an issue either way with what happens, since if the spread of excessive-info pages are deleted I can just recreate them as sections in a few Goliath-sized ones. CABAL 14:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a game guide, it contains a tremendous amount of information about a tremendous number of video games (not just Pokemon). This article does a good job of describing elements of a game with which I have no familiarity. Having read the article, I understand the game better, but I would still need to read the guidebook before playing. Not that I would probably want to <grin>. It does not go on to provide gaming tips or instructions for play. While it is currently true that aficionados of the game probably already have this information, Wikipedia acts as a handy reference for people who might want information about a subject they are not familiar with. The article could conceivably survive the subject. Years from now, someone might need the article for information about real time strategy PC games and be thrilled to find this article.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 14:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please. This level of detail about a game is not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Hirudo 15:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , moved to the command and conquer wikia --Astrokey44 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.--Isotope23 16:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: sorry that you guys put so much work into these articles, but I do not believe that they belong on the Wikipedia. Where Astrokey alerted us that it is now is a good place, just needs the images up'd. Good luck. Chuck(척뉴넘) 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rewrite so it's less of a guide and more a factual presentation of the structures as per Knucmo2 above. I feel there is a lack of tolerance on Wiki for enthusiasts of this form of activity, although there is considerable interest in it, and demand for it in the wider world. These people should be accommodated, whether it is to our personal taste or not. These games are no different in intrinsic value from more established games such as Cluedo, which merit articles. We are documenting a sociological phenomenon for the future as well. Tyrenius 17:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Great collection of information, and there is plenty of precedent - see things like List of Mega Man weapons. Command and Conquer is hugely popular game franchise, and this work is valuable in that it will be here long after copies of the game and its manuals are history. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what you're referring to as "precedent" is more accurately described as "gamers made a bunch of video game guides on Wikipedia that no one has nominated yet." I'll nominate one of the MegaMan articles to see what consensus is, but I'm worried that, as has happened with this one, the video game subculture here at Wikipedia will see the AfD and will pour into the debate in defense of the article. Aplomado talk 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? That is the very definition of consensus. If you nominate an article, and fail to build consensus, then the community has spoken for the article. Any time I see an article like this tagged for deletion, it never fails that I encounter this "I don't like the topic" or "I consider the topic sophomoric" and therefore it must be deleted attitude. Also, I will admit that "ownership" is a problem here, but I know from experience that any time someone writes or contributes to an article, they are going feel the urge to defend it, and I certainly don't begrudge them that. Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't either, I'm referring more to "rallying the troops" in an effort to defeat consensus rather than build it. Aplomado talk 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The term "video game subculture" seems to be used in way to convey a pejorative association, but it just means there are a lot of people interested in this subject. I feel there is prejudice against these people, but from a NPOV it's just an observable phenomenon like any other. We have an article on an underarm deodorant on the basis that it is of significance to a lot of people that use it. This is the people's encyclopedia, not the intellectuals, nor the "cultured" person. Let's be generous and inclusive in what we accommodate. Otherwise it is a form of censorship on the basis of taste. I have minimal interest in these games myself, but I think in society now it is the people who appreciate the arts (of whom I am one) who are the subculture, while video gamers and suchlike are the mainstream. Tyrenius 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already transwiki'd to where it belongs. --InShaneee 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. Brian G. Crawford 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So what if its a game? Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I don't start a crusade to wipe it off the website. I go through literally HUNDREDS of pages on here that other users might find useless. If this page gets the boot, it sets the stage for anything else related to gaming, because the same argument could be made that "this is not a gaming site". While I agree this is NOT a gaming site, this is legitimate information. It may require editing, but not full-blown deletion. Lemme list a few other game pages on here overflowing with info: Halo, Warcraft 1-3 + WOW (which has its own Wiki I hear), Diablo 2, the C&C Universe, Doom-series. I won't even START on how the entire genre of Japanimation should be removed. I believe the tag "Deletion" should be removed and have the "Cleanup" tag applied.... and Aplomado, stop crying to Admins that another user talked to other users about this. Go crusade against something more meaningful. Ghostalker 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, so what if it sets the stage? Maybe it should. Just because non-notable articles have been piling up doesn't mean they aren't in violation of policy. I am not on a "crusade," you would do well to read the notice on the AfD page which says "please don't take offense" just because it was nominated for deletion. Personally, it doesn't matter to me one way or another whether this page is deleted. If the community decides that this is a legitimate article and doesn't violate policy, it doesn't bother me one bit. But you are judging the validity of this article based on the sheer quantity of articles similar to it rather then whether or not it is actually in violation of Wikipedia policy. If there are other articles that need be deleted, they will be dealt with in time. The "argument from quanity" doesn't fly, however. ... As for "crying to Admins", I think it is useful for them to know when someone is going around posting "deletion emergency" to the talk pages of people likely to be sympathetic to his cause, basically an effort to "stuff the ballot box" so to speak. Aplomado talk 21:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that anyone here does't LIKE the article, just that we don't believe it is appropriate given our current guidelines. --InShaneee 21:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aplomado, the deletion notice you posted clearly states, and I quote:"please note that the deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors". A consensus can not be reached unless people on both sides of the issue are informed of such actions. As for your accusation regarding the so called "stuffing of the ballot box", I never asked the six Users I posted my message to to vote "keep", that is a disicion they will make of thier own free accord. Furthermore, I find your failure to assume good faith in this matter very disturbing. A notable user such as your self should know that assuming good faith is a policy here, and it goes hand in hand with our policy of being bold in updating articles. Lastly, It specifically says on the AFD page not to nominate articles recently created. If you will allow us some time we can expand the articles to include artistic designers, real life inspirations and so on. Lastly, real-time strategy and turn-based strategy games are somewhat different from the game articles on here beacuse the units and structures of such games are an intimate part of the games. Stripping the structures and units of RTS and TBS games entirely from Wikipedia does not advance the ideals of an encyclopedia. TomStar81 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • <sheepish grin>Oops, I forgot that I include that (it was not in my original draft)</sheepish grin>. I concede a point in your favor, sir. TomStar81 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't worry about it, I'm not trying to be an asshole cuz lord knows I've made mistakes on Wikipedia before, and I know you've put in plenty of work into Wikipedia so kudos for that and keep up the good work. Aplomado talk 00:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - list of facts about a game, not interesting to the common observer. Only usable as a guide to the game or point of comparison. All the info does not have to go, WP could hold info on the basics of game units (eg. whether you build from a moving unit or a "town hall", is there a unit cap, one or five "factories", etc.) Lundse 23:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - as per TomStar81, Tyrenius, Aguerriero, and Ghostalker. Jareand 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's an indiscriminate collection of information. --Nick Y. 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some very valid observations have been made about this article to improve it, and one of the main editors TomStar81 has asked for time to improve it with more encyclopedic content. These editors are acknowledged to be hard working and sincere. I propose we halt this AfD for now and give them a month to knock the article into acceptable form, then, if necessary, relist. I think discussion and debate at this stage is more appropriate than AfD. Let's work together, not apart. Tyrenius 01:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second that motion. Jareand 01:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the problem here is more that the topic is inappropriate for Wikipedia, rather than the condition it is currently in. Aplomado talk 01:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would agree, but I think that it can be solved with a gradual phasing out of these pages rather then an AfD at the moment. I support the motion to delay for the moment and see if anything can come out of the consensus. It is clear that a consensus exists against the page as is, but it is possible that a changed version focusing less on a rote list and more on how this affects game play is acceptable for wiki. --Lakhim 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Those arguing for deletion seem to have few guidelines to cite, and there does appear to be precdent for this sort of article. I'm still uncomfortable, though: see see "instruction manuals" at [Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and this comes close to being an instruction manual. If it can be rewritten to describe the game in a way that explains it to a non-gamer like, and if it can assert notability, then it would have a place here. Maybe the editors should be given that chance? --BrownHairedGirl 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose the following solution: We allow one month for the C&C community to see if they can transform the pages listed on the template Command & Conquer: Generals into something more befitting an encyclopedia article. If after one month the articles show little or no improvement then a discussion should be opened as to whether the articles have reached a state where mass merging would be a vaible option. Alternatively, if the articles listed on the pages show little or no improvement from their current state then we can open a discussion focused either on transfereing them to a wiki better suited for the information presented or simply have them deleted. I would also note that this AFD has opened a serious discussion in to what exactly constitutes a "game manual" here on wikipedia. I think that some sort of consensus must be reached so that future AFDs that cite a game manual layout as the primary cause for deletion can reinforce this claim by having an accepted definition of the term as it applies here. Unless we have a game manual definition to look to other editers will argue the same points that I have raised here, and the cycle of what gets deleted and what stays will get ugly (or uglier). Part of the problem with this AFD is that we have no definition to cite, which leaves some ambiguity as to whether this page— or any of the other pages created in this manner— should be treated as lists or as game manuals. As they say: It sometimes take a solution to identify a problem. TomStar81 01:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I would also note that this AFD has opened a serious discussion in to what exactly constitutes a "game manual" here on wikipedia." I concur, and was thinking the same thing myself. The "not an instruction manual" guideline is very vague and someone should start a discussion about it. Aplomado talk 01:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You beat me to it in an edit conflict. I think all of this indicates there needs to be community consensus over guidelines on games throughout Wiki and the discussion transferred to a suitable ___location to do this. One suggestion is a project on the matter, if one does not already exist.Tyrenius 02:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, lets start one up. We already have a good debate going, and we are the ones who opened pandora's box, so to speak ;) TomStar81 02:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to wonder how many times the exact debate has been had, every time someone tries to delete a Gundam article, a Pokemon article, a MegaMan article, etc ad nauseum. Not that it's not a useful debate; I just hate to re-invent the wheel. I tend to be of the opinion that people trying to delete articles should need to demonstrate that the material is either wrong or useless, and neither is the case here.Aguerriero (ţ) (ć) (ë) 03:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I would second the motion to give people time to develop the article and then see. But I would like to know what kind of new information, deletion of old and/or general editing will make this article relevant for wikipedia and not just a collection of knowledge about a game. Lundse 08:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A good way to format it would be to condense all those articles into concise sections like the Dune II structure and unit list is formatted. This provides the same information without all the unnecessary strategy information. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont be jerks, leave the page as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.97.17.43 (talk • contribs) .
  • Realizing that I am quite new to this discussion, I find it pertinent to point out that this debate really isn't a debate at all, rather it more closely resembles an internet power struggle. I say this not because I support keeping the page around, but rather because in order for a debate to be successful in any way it must have some sort of framework, an issue that can actually be fought to a conclusion. What are we debating anyway? Whether or not the article should be deleted? If such were the case, then I would expect some sort of grounds to measure why it should be deleted. All of the nay-sayers to this page have offered comment after comment about why they think the page should be deleted, but most say that it is simply because the page is a kind of game manual or guide. If such were the case, I should assume that as in any matter of intellectual dissent there would be supporting evidence to back the claim that the article is deserving of deletion, but alas, none has been provided. In fact, I would assert that all actual evidence that can be presented in such a debate points in the opposite direction. A game manual, by definition, is a book that specifically gives instructions, and a guide is, by definition a tool used for direction or advisement. Seeing neither of these prerequisites present in the article in question, I have no choice but to find that the argument supporting deletion is fallacious and flawed, and must either be presented with actual evidence or considered subservient to those who have voted to keep the article alive.ChiRoGuardian06 05:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or merge it and the other two into one list. Same goes for every set listed in the {{C&CG}} template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - big picture thinking says this simply isn't encyclopedic. Vizjim 15:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the proposer of this AfD seems to have effectively withdrawn the nom by coming to an agreement with one of the main editors to allow time to improve the article.Tyrenius 17:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this piece of randomcrapcruft. Actually, it's not random or crap, but it is gamecruft and doesn't belong on wikipedia. A well-written article, it deserves to be transwikied to some sort of C&C wiki. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Transwiki. Not encyclopedic enough. GarrettTalk 05:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per nom. WP is not a free webhost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong delete per nom. I do not accede to the Lakhim/Tom compromise (even as I appreciate the spirit in which it was reached), and this delete should not be construed as merge, inasmuch as the subject of the article, irrespective of the formulation of the article, will always be insufficiently notable/instructional (and hence unencyclopedic). With respect to Aplomado's marking the "votes" of editors whom Tom solicited to participate, such tagging is perhaps useful since it helps one to identify underlying motives, but, as we assume good faith and as each contributor has offered a defensible reason for keep, the primary admonishment ought to go to Tom; talk page spamming is looked upon with disfavor, but spamming with the explicit purpose of soliciting a particular vote is remarkably egregious. Nevertheless, Tom has offered an apology and explained his ignorance of the process, and so, I think, we can all move on. Joe 04:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the nominator wishes to confirm withdrawal of the nomination (which currently appears ambiguous), I am prepared to close the page as "nomination withdrawn" on that basis, without prejudice to any future AfD initiated by the nominator or anyone else after a period of one month from the date of closure. It is entirely up to the nominator to make a clear decision, within a reasonable time (say, 48 hours), whether or not to withdraw the nomination. I respectfully suggest that any other admin who comes here before I'm next here follow this approach, though I can't bind other admins who may see it differently. Metamagician3000 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Structures_of_the_GLA&oldid=1138800964"