Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust

Add links
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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. Although there are strong arguments for merging, this is a normal editorial action and may be performed without the auspice of a deletion forum. It should be noted that these articles stretch fair use to the breaking point, balance on the edge of reliable sources, may violate our bias policies about undue representation, and are highly unlikely search terms for anyone not already ensconced in this culture. These, and to a large degree the proposed target Counter-Strike maps, could use a lot of work making them more encyclopedic and less *groans to use the word* crufty.
brenneman {L} 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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_survivor, de_train, de_vertigo, cs_747, cs_backalley[edit]

Individual maps for a computer game? This is the very definition of cruft. Rory096 04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into gametype pages, probably with trimming. The CS maps are notable, and can be sourced(Ugh, that is a BAD pun in context, isn't it?) They do not, however, deserve their own pages. I would compare it to having a page on Madison, Wisconsin that mentions a street (Say, State Street, that's a major street in the city) and that street having its own article. The street should be here, but not in its own article. --Kinkoblast 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I should be more careful. State Street DOES have its own article. That probably ought to be nominated for deletion too, huh?--Kinkoblast 22:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, These maps are very remarkable, being played many times over by far the most popular is dust2.

--Chrisjustinparr 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, CS is notable enough, and these articles provide nice info about the development of these maps and associated trivia and criticism. - Sikon 05:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, CS is notable. That's why we have Counter-Strike. However, these individual maps are not, and are completely unsourced, too. --Rory096 05:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Counter-Strike is a very notable game. I have done a lot of work on (and written some of) these articles to make them not cruft. Those who are new to the game, and even veteran players, can learn things about the maps from these articles (I know I did!). Also, Counter-Strike is so popular that people who have never played the game might encounter references to these maps on the Internet, whether through forum postings, flash videos, etc. Additionally, cruft alone is not enough to delete an article - from Wikipedia:Fancruft: "[Things labeled as fancruft are usually deleted] due to the fact that [they] are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion." These articles are none of the above. Also, "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." - Varco 05:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see references in very few of those. Indeed, they seem a lot like original research. --Rory096 05:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of edits. - brenneman {L} 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although you are correct that they are not referenced (and I mistakenly said they were), they are not original research according to the page you provided. These articles do not fall into the category of original research based on the "What is original research" section of the page. A line from it which particularly defends my position is: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." These articles propose no ideas or arguments. The information is taken mostly from primary sources. As this is the case, and since they should have had references added long ago (my own fault), I will add sources to the articles. -Varco 05:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Counter-Strike maps or keep, my preferences in that order. I don't see a lot of expansion for any of these articles, and they are all somewhat short. Even a merge into Counter-Strike hostage rescue maps, Counter-Strike assassination maps, etc. would make the articles much better. Also, a lot of the articles are inflated by weasel words, e.g. "the map is often criticized ..." criticized by who, exactly? (Of course, that can be fixed, not deleted.) Sources would be appreciated, but the articles seem over-inflated.
  • One final note: I would appreciate some clarification as to the copyright status of the images. The screenshots -- are they fair use screenshots or not? If they are, I think we have a few too many for each page. (Actually, I believe we have a few too images on all of the pages.) Oh, and as for the maps -- it would be very nice if we could have free images of those instead. I don't imagine freely licensed maps would be too hard to generate. TheProject 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have updated the screenshots to use the fair use game screenshot tag. I do agree that there are too many and that some can be removed. -Varco 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was pleasantly surprised to find these here and now I'm even more surprised with the AfD nomination. If they were just stubs I wouldn't object but in their current state thay seem worth keeping. What I think is worth consideration are the images keep 1 per article as fair use. ~~helix84 06:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete fancruft. Stormscape 06:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure highly deletable cruft.--DV8 2XL 06:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless somebody can give a valid reason for deletion. TheMadBaron 07:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Counter-Strike maps. I don't think this belongs in an encyclopedia, but as long as it is kept under control maybe these editors will grow up and write valuable WP articles.---CH 07:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bit tense? Fortunately value is in the eye of the beholder. It is articles like these which give Wikipedia its long tail; and make it such a valuable and unique resource. Your comment almost had me change my mind and start a campaign to keep them as is; I don't have the time these days, but I have the will. - RoyBoy 800 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Every game mod is not automatically notable. If there are some that are widely noted in media (e.g. in print, not just blogs and chat sites) then mention those in Counter-Strike maps. Weregerbil 08:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As per above Ydam 08:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge onto a new page. - Nick C 09:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CS is a well-known game and these are definately worth keeping. If that is not possible, a merge could be considered - though I would rather keep it. -- Chris Lester talk 09:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too large to merge, so merging would be silly. Fairly well documented, including maps. Very very geeky, agreed, but no harm in keeping. Kim Bruning 10:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I admit that the section has expanded faster than information can be added. It must be said that I feel that more information needs to be added to justify most pages, if anything the 'de_dust and de_dust2' page needs to be expanded as these are incredibly important maps, directly relevant to the history of multiplayer gaming. Counter-Strike's preminence as a staple of internet gaming needs to be documented, and the popularity of the game is directly related to the player's experience of individual maps. Oh, and of course the 'weasel' words are subjective, as there is no offical body commenting on Counter-Strike, it is left to bloggers, fanboys and the like.

Keep, update, and make relevant and neat. Monchberter. 12.18 19 May 2006 GMT

  • Merge and redirect As above. Beno1000 13:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep for de_dust, which is probably the most popular map (series) of all online FPS games ever. I vote keep for the other official maps. I don't think the people voting to delete understand how popular most of these are. Try a google search for de_cbble (1.3 million hits) or de_aztec (1.5 million) de_nuke (1.7 million), for instance. — brighterorange (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. --cholmes75 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into one article with no redirects Anybody who says each map needs its own article is nuts. And we're talking cashews, here. Also, I don't think redirects are even remotely necessary. Honestly, how many people are actually going to search for these maps? The average CS fan is a thousand times more likely to just search "Counter-Strike maps" than to search "cs_italy". -- Kicking222 15:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. --Tone 15:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may agree that it is better to merge. However, your average CS fan is as likely to search for de_dust and de_cbble than "counter-strike maps". They get used to filtering out the massive server lists by mapname, that's why. - Hahnchen 18:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Mmx1 16:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Counter-Strike maps. Thunderbrand 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Counter-Strike maps is already a very long article. While I recognize that some parts of it could be removed, even if they were, the article would be extremely long after all of these map articles (and more, as they're still being written) were merged into it. --Varco 17:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Kicking222. -- stubblyhead | T/c 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I personally think these are more notable than the starcraft related articles on Wikipedia. Just flicking through the server browser now, and there are over 10000 servers running either de_dust or de_dust2 with similar player numbers, in the thousands 24/7. I do not support a merge because the various merge targets are already overfilling, and I definitely think that showing the progression of long standing maps from conception to source engine is interesting and encyclopedic. For example, there is an article on Surfing (Counter-Strike) which collates all the surf map details onto a single page, note that currently on counter-strike there are only 237 servers running any sort of surf map compared to the thousands for every official map. It may be worthwhile creating an article for hostage rescue maps, one for defusion maps and then merging. Some maps, I believe are not exactly that notable and are possibly merge or deletion targets, de_survivor maybe, as_oilrig into an assassination maps article maybe. I'd also like people to consider this, although not very vocal on Wikipedia, the counter-strike community is very large, at this very second, there are over 200,000 players actually IN GAME according to the stats at Steam. I guess that the counter-strike community and the number of people who would find articles on de_dust and cs_militia interesting and worthy of an encyclopedia greatly outnumber those who find specific webforums or webcomic characters to be notable, yet due to their lack of presence on Wikipedia, their voices are not as well heard. - Hahnchen 18:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment despite the fact that there are many CS players, we have to ask ourselves the most important question. Is it a content appropriate for an encyclopedia? The game itself certainly is. Separate maps certainly aren't. It is ok to mention them in the central article, or even a separate one, but certainly not each one in its article. If someone wants to know details of the map, he/she should look at the official website. Not here. --Tone 19:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The official site has very little information about map details. If these are not worthy of an encyclopedia, why are the individual articles for each of the 395 Pokémon, as well as all of the towns in the universe (e.g. Viridian City, Pallet Town)? (Note that I am not saying that those should be deleted; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, those articles, as well as the ones in question, are harming nothing.) The fan-base is not small enough to be considered cruft (part of the definition on Wikipedia:Fancruft is that it is only of importance to a small group of enthusiastic fans... This is important to a large group of fans, and those fans who would be interested might even be just casual fans. --Varco 19:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I can understand why you would call for a merge. I remember a while back there was a sort of Blood Gulch precedent as set by the Halo map. Whereas static unchanging maps such as Blood Gulch are served perfectly well with the Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved article, I do not believe this would be the same for Counter-Strike maps. Not only are they vastly more popular, but with counter-strike's iterative release and development, they also have significant version changes, remakes and retextures, which I believe would be lost in a merge due to article size. I believe that there are currently more players on de_nuke alone, than there are readers of Concerned or people interested in SK Gaming. However, I think anyone interested in SK Gaming or esports, would definitely find the maps on which these events are held to be interesting and encyclopedic. - Hahnchen 19:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, let's say you convinced me. I'm fine with keeping them all. --Tone 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if somoene wants to maintain the page then let them. --Supercoop 19:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It doesn't matter that it's unencyclopaedic and unsourced? --Rory096 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough edits. - brenneman {L} 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If a notable subject gets so big that it must be broken down, then the subpages inherit the notability. Aguerriero (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While I don't have any feelings one way or the other for CS, simply calling something cruft isn't sufficient reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That's not the only reason... --Rory096 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. But it's more or less the only one being discussed, and it's the one you issued when you made the afd. --Varco 22:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. So it should be kept because reasons to delete it aren't being discussed? That doesn't make sense. --Rory096 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of edits. - brenneman {L} 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect somewhere as per above. --InShaneee 20:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia 1) is electronic, and 2) promotes the "open source"/"share and share alike" mentality. Both of these elements are characteristic of a new age in a world where the definition of "encyclopedic" is changing to encompass more than what was in your grandfather's bookshelf encyclopedia set. Counter-Strike is a game classic enough in this new age to have individual map articles. --Jsfritz 21:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC) (Note: This was this user's 3rd edit to wikipedia.) ---J.S (t|c) 22:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Being open source and sharing our content means that we allow other people to use it, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Being electronic means that we are biased towards things like Counter-Strike, while Nobel laureates like Salvatore Quasimodo get very few edits and text. This is our systemic bias, and we should be fighting that, not encouraging it. Yes, m:Wiki is not paper, but that doesn't mean that individual maps for a computer game are encyclopaedic. --Rory096 22:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sorry if I was unclear. What I meant was, these are progressive ideas, and in an encyclopedia that promotes progressive ideas, should go articles on progressive things, such as Gaming and the content within those games.--Jsfritz 23:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I agree, to a point. That doesn't mean we should have everything regarding a game; do you think Encyclopaedia Britannica would ever have anything on {{Half-Life series}}? --Rory096 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since WP isn't a game guide. This information is much better suited to the CS player's manual, frankly. The whole argument that "wikipedia isn't paper" has alwase seemed like a cop-out to me. You could defend any article on anything useing that logic. It also makes an counter-arugment to an argument that was never riased! Noone has claimed "Delete because it's takeing up too much space." Oh well. This is looking like a no-concensus so far. ---J.S (t|c) 22:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Wikipedia isn't a chocolate guide either, but there's plenty of articles on various applications/types of chocolate. --Jsfritz 23:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of edits. - brenneman {L} 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this too crufty by far. Belongs in a CS-wiki or something, certainly not here. --Eivindt@c 23:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Cruft is not sufficient reason to delete, 2) You link to WP:NOT, but what exactly in there applies here? --Varco 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) Tmorrisey 23:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: into Counter-Strike maps. - Tutmosis 00:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No brainer keep and merge, grouping by map type; and redirects for goodness sakes: Crufty yes, but entirely notable for the most popular FPS on the planet. It is a tour de force in gaming industry; to not have them detailed in some sort of sub article is crazy talk. - RoyBoy 800 06:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No brainer delete outright, or at best, merge into Counter-Strike maps. Way too fancrufty -- and before Mr. Junior-League Perry Mason leaps in here, yes, it's a valid reason for deletion, namely that an article of interest only to fans and no one else ISN'T encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Show me where in Wikipedia policy fancruft is labeled as a valid policy for deletion. Fancruft is too subjective of a term to be a sole reason for deletion. I noticed that you edit articles relating to military naval vessels... in your world, those should be deleted as fancruft because they're only of real interest to those interested in military history. Almost everything in Wikipedia can be considered fancruft to someone else. In regards to these articles, even if they were only of interest to fans, there are 19.5 million legal owners of Counter-Strike. I think that's large enough population to not be considered cruft. It's not up to you to decide what's interesting to lots of other people. --Varco 06:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – or merge, but preferably delete. Individual maps for a game, no matter how popular the game, do not merit encyclopediaic articles. Especially not ones with such stupid names – Gurch 13:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The names are functional and serve a purpose. Perhaps before discounting articles based on their name, you should reevaluate what you think is "encyclopediaic." --Jsfritz 19:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are badly named, in my opinion. I don't think many people would search on those names. To use another example, say I was going to make an article on the Call of Duty 2 map "Moscow, Russia". While that map has a technical name similar to these (like cd_trainyard or something) it would be better and more encyclopedic to name the article Moscow, Russia (Call of Duty 2 map) because that's what would allow someone to find it. If I were the one who wanted these articles kept, I would be putting my energy into making them the best they can be and possibly changing some minds. Aguerriero (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're absolutely not badly named. Whereas players do refer to the maps as Italy or Dust, they just as much refer to them as cs_italy or de_dust. Do a search for Dust Counter-strike on google, and you'll see that most of the results come back with de_dust in them. Even in articles about counter-strike and strategy guides, they'll most probably mention the map prefix. And counter-strike players will have been used to filtering the maps by name as well as their name in the server browser. - Hahnchen 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're just arguing in favor of deleting the articles. You are implying that only CS players would look up these maps, which to a lot of people is going to mean that they don't belong here and should go to an online game guide or something. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see them stay. But the way you are debating this issue, you are going to cause more delete votes than keep votes. Aguerriero (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I've made my points clear why they should be kept above. I am only clarifying the point here on its naming. People are less likely to search for Dust (Counter-Strike than for de_dust. - Hahnchen 21:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty of edits. - 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge into one, significantly shortened, article. These should certainly not be in their own pages. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:CVG (If it's only useful to people playing the game, it's unsuitable). Nifboy 03:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Maps are referenced in many places outside of the game: forums, IRC, everywhere. At my school somebody wears a shirt "I pwn at de_dust" (anonymous)
      • I would dare to suggest the forums, IRC chans, etc, you speak of consist of people who play CS. Outside of "de_dust is a series of maps for Counter Strike", there's no information in the article that has any real relevence for someone who doesn't play. Nifboy 05:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then that should be changed. - RoyBoy 800 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article on Fermi-Dirac statistics is only useful to people who already understand it, and I'd imagine there are more people who play de_aztec than understand the finer points of Super String Theory. Should we throw out the article on English because not everyone speaks it? These articles are to inform people who don't play the game about the maps - people who play the game religiously already know every nook and cranny of the maps, as well as their biases. *You* don't play CS, and *you* don't find these maps useful, but don't project your feelings across wikipedia. (will @ 128.173.236.156) 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Enough edits. - brenneman {L} 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into map type Will (E@) T 08:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, these are almost certantly the most well known maps for any multiplayer game ever. Merge by map type if it's completely necessary, but in no way should these be deleted. --Boyinabox 12:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep S Sepp 11:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Hahnchen. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Come on, it is non-encypledic. Very detailed information for fans of a particular game. To the "keepers": do you think such information would make it to a paper encyclopedia? You think any outside of the CS-community would find these maps interesting?Medico80 14:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My keep vote above is based on the enormous size of the CS-community. The difference between the CS Community, and those of the Macromedia Flash community, webcomic community or podcasting (god damn I hate that word) community, is not one of size, but one of representation on Wikipedia. For example, de_nuke has had more critical commentary, guides written about it, CPL level competitions played on it, and probably has tens of thousands of people playing it right now and 24/7. Compare this to an article I voted to delete, Joseph Blanchette, a Flash animator on Newgrounds who will never have the amount of fans or commentary that a single official CS map will have, or any piece of tripe from Category:Webcomics. If these were Team Fortress Classic maps, or Day of Defeat maps, I'd have voted delete. But it isn't, it's counter-strike, the most popular online FPS on the planet, and has been that way for around 5 years. - Hahnchen 15:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Map designers, game enthusiasts/historians. - RoyBoy 800 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You yourself say you're new to Wikipedia, so might I suggest checking out Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, one of which is a paper encyclopedia. --Varco 20:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fifty-eight edits since 13 March. - brenneman {L} 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and trim cruft highly notable maps, played by tens ouf thosuands of palyers at any time. THats more peopel then attend most of the local high schools which have their own articles. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 15:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Hahnchen. ~ Vic Vipr 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As mentioned, these maps are an important part of a highly notable game. That being said, it is a bit of a stretch to give each on its own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schrodingers_Mongoose (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep Maps like dust and aztec are like icons in the gaming community. Every gamer, regardless of if they play CS or not, knows that these maps define FPS's. They have a lot of culture associated with them. I would be extremely dissappointed if they were deleted. ~ rake
    • Fifty-five edits since 16 December 2005. - brenneman {L} 00:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My main objection to those maps and other sorts of over-detailed gamer stuff is, that they are not respecting wikipedia as an encyclopedia readable and accessible to all people with all sorts of interest. I see that way back, August 2005, a cleanup was recommended, but these map articles are still very poorly structured and using a lot of insider gamer-understood phrases. It sort of says: "If you don't understand what this is about and how important it is, well, leave us alone". Those who advocate keeping those maps, should make efforts turning them from fancruft to decent articles. 130.225.184.24
  • Merge — Individual pages for maps of a particular computer game? It completely devalues Wikipedia's article count. OK, if it's a really popular game then it is justifiable to make an article specifically about the maps. But an article for each map, especially if they use esoteric jargon, is not suitable for any wiki other than one about the game in question. I don't object to this information (on specific maps) being in Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be fragmented like this. Callum85 13:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - If people would come down from their latin-using high horses for a minute and think about these statistics, pulled FROM THE WIKIPEDIA Counter-strike article: 20,000,000 (twenty million) people own Counter-strike. At peak, there were 30,000 (thirty THOUSAND) counter-strike servers operating, more than THREE TIMES the 2nd place game (UT with less than 10,000). In 2006, Valve's online distribution system, steam, reports that there are 200,000 Counter-strike players, accounting for 70% (SEVENTY PERCENT) of the online first-person-shooter audience. World-wide, people spend a total of 75,000,000 hours EACH MONTH playing counterstrike.
    If someone can tell me how a short list of 15 or 20 articles relating to a game that 200,000 people play currently, and 20,000,000 people own, and accounts for 70% of FPS playing, is *NON NOTABLE*, I'd be happy. Especially when compared to a list of 400 pokemon characters. Fancruft would imply only a few dedicated fans - I would say this falls in the category of "not fancruft". de_dust is the most played FPS map in the history of online gaming - how would it not deserve an article? (will @ 128.173.236.156) 19:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - Having a page for every single map is not right for an encyclopedia. Merge it into the CS maps article, and keep most of the content with it. - XX55XX 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to one article (and shorten). FYI see List of maps in Battlefield 2 as the same thing (separate map articles) is happening there. Good luck to closing admin. feydey 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Counter-Strike bomb defusal maps or similar. Most famous and popular map. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 23:22, 23 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/De_dust&oldid=1110673152"