Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of competitive Counter-Strike maps

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of competitive Counter-Strike maps[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pointless list with entries that violate WP:N and WP:GAMEGUIDE. I thought this article would be a neat idea to bundle together some coverage on maps that didn't have enough for their own articles. It was a neat idea, but unfortunately it died there immediately because there is no coverage in the first place besides trivial esports knowledge. Competitive Counter-Strike is well covered at articles such as Counter-Strike in esports already. Four maps in this series have their own articles already, these being Dust II, Inferno (Counter-Strike), Mirage (Counter-Strike), and Nuke (Counter-Strike). These are also the only four that I believe are able to hold their own coverage wise, and even then I think Nuke and Mirage are a bit flimsy. Everything else simply lacks the coverage for even a list entry, with Overpass and Train being prime examples of this. Everything this list can say or would be able to say is "this is a Counter-Strike map" with trivial esports knowledge that has no value to an encyclopedia and absolutely zero critical commentary. This list serves no purpose. NegativeMP1 21:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I jumped the gun on this article and didn't investigate available sources or write out this article any further, so I am going to strike my comment and Withdraw my nomination, but since there's possibility for a different outcome that isn't keep, I'm not closing this nomination early and will let the discussion run it's course. NegativeMP1 18:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. NegativeMP1 21:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this not be deletable under WP:G7 as you provided "the only substantial content of the page"? Other editors only fixed minor typos. If you changed your mind about the article, it could probably be speedily deleted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about doing that but I didn't know if it would qualify since the page was already reviewed and had existed for two and a half months. NegativeMP1 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm seeing here a list of major setups used within the competitive game. Four of them have independent articles because there is so much written about them. Other entries in this list are only subject to a few articles by publications like PC Gamer, PCGamesN, Dot Esports, or Shack News. The list handily compiles the most commonly used maps in the sport with release dates and other general information about what makes the maps unique. I think the Rock Paper Shotgun source is particular helpful in establishing this list as its own topic, and The Dot even presents them as a list in an article, and PCGamesN goes into detail about four of them at once too. A deletion nomination per "gameguide" is wild to me in this case, as the closest it gets to that is "The map has an increased emphasis on long-ranged combat". To me, this nomination just feels like disregarding competitive Counter Strike as a legitimate subject. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If you think "Nuke" and "Mirage" have flimsy notability, merging them into the list would be very reasonable to me. A discussion for their talkpages I suppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily saying they're not notable, what I meant to say was that I don't think they are as notable as Dust II or Inferno. NegativeMP1 08:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to disregard it as a subject, I love Counter-Strike and I find levels/maps fun to write about. My primary concern here is "could each map be covered with reception and history", which I feel all that are outside of the four with articles wouldn't meet that bar. NegativeMP1 08:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List articles typically don't present a full history and legacy/reception for each entry. It's common on Wikipedia for lists to just be a few tables. I'm genuinely really happy this list is all (sourced) prose, that's rare to work out. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then I suppose I can withdraw this nomination, maybe I needed to write this article out a bit more before determining this. NegativeMP1 18:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of maps is WP:GAMETRIVIA. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per no. 7, I presume? In this case nearly all information is presented within the context of their significance to the "industry" (competitive scene), as per the described exception for when to include such information. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, I don't agree that it's gamecruft. I found at least one source talking about competitive CS maps as a whole, and many of the maps are individually notable. It's safe to say that CS maps are a topic worthy of listification, as long as it doesn't get too heavily into GAMEGUIDE content and talks about their out-of-universe significance. This list is far from violating WP:NOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Four maps have their own articles, and coverage has been found. Dream Focus 04:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough meaningful coverage does exist to support this article staying. GraziePrego (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2023 (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.