Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike weapons

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. - Mailer Diablo 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike weapons

unencyclopedic fancruft. Jestix 09:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Click here for a related past AfD for an article on Counter-Strike_equipment. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to a gaming wiki. Wikipedia isn't a game guide.--Wafulz 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per last AFD. If we keep deleting it, eventually they will get the message. Recury 13:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If we delete it, another of the millions of CS players will create it anew or add the information to the article. Or, if they get frustrated that it keeps getting deleted, more of them will vandalize Wikipedia because it is hostile to them. The information is already available at the CS wiki, so transwiki-ing is unneccessary. --Habap 13:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "They will persistently vandalize" is not a reason for keeping it. If they recreate it, it will be protected. If they vandalize, they'll be warned and blocked appropriately. --Wafulz 14:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI: I have notified most of the folks who have edited the article of this AfD so that they can comment. I have not asked them to "vote" one way or the other, but simply notified them. I think it was 7 or 8 users (I only notified the ones with usernames and the one IP that edited the most). I have not notified anyone who did not edit the article. --Habap 14:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should Wikipedia be hostile to them, when deleting stuff that doesn't fit into the encyclopedic mission? If stuff that is deleted gets recreated they are hostile to wikipedia. Also I read this "arugment" as a threat of (internet) violence and this is IMHO not tolerable, I don't think wikipedia should bow its encyclopedia mission just because some group thinks that it must have to publish stuff here. --Jestix 16:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. I am not making threats. I am a Wikipedian. I have noticed that whenever there is no article on equipment, some new CS player who wants to help Wikipedia creates a new article on CS equipment. I am merely hypothesizing that if we shoo them away (WP:BITE), we may make them feel unwelcome. This makes them more likely to be vandals. These are merely my observations and not a threat (please check my contributions and review WP:AGF). --Habap 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gamecruft. Danny Lilithborne 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Pure gamecruft, just a list without any explanation why this should be in an encyclopedia instead of a Counter-Strike manual. JIP | Talk 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Nice and a little informative to some players. Failing that, I'd suggest doing a Transwiki to the StrategyWiki or something. --TonicBH 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - infomational but see WP:NOT --T-rex 21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The weird thing about the article is that it's a list of real world stats on weapons that are apparently used in counterstrike. Seano1 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ergative rlt 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT :) Dlohcierekim 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft, just like Counter-Strike equipment was. Hargle 10:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Sadly). More reminiscent of an instruction manual than an encyclopedia. Markovich292 08:19, 16 September 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.