Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142

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. Dakota 22:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142[edit]

Delete per the precedence set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe in that Wikipedia is not a substitute for a game guide. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 00:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 00:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep no different than having a List of Friends episodes or List of automobiles. Just because it has to do with a video game means it should be deleted? That makes absolutley no sense to me. It's information about the game in question, just like the list of episodes in Friends is information about the TV show.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gamecruft. Fictional vehicles in a video game are not comparable to an actual vehicle or even to a episode of a sitcom (though I don't like the episode articles either).Bwithh 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Battlefieldcruft. Also, WP:NOT a game guide. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is, to me, an issue of precedent, and precedent has shown that this article is of a type that is to be deleted. I worry about this precedent resulting in the future deletion of something that would be of actual use (List_of_Pokémon_by_name or suchlike) but this isn't. Imban 01:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to a Battlefield Wiki. TJ Spyke 03:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 03:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Annihilate Big fat copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 07:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, there's enough info here to warrant a separate article. Certainly the info itself warrants inclusion. Everyking 07:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Except every single word is copied-and-pasted from the link at the bottom. ~ trialsanderrors 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? So why are we having this argument about game guides and such? If it's a copyvio, it should be speedied immediately. Everyking 09:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Copyvios aren't speediable unless they're fresh. ~ trialsanderrors 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if it's a copyvio, but I maintain that there is no need for any further discussion here now that we know it's a copyvio. This shouldn't have been made a question of notability. Everyking 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. This really isn't a question of notability at all. This is a question about what Wikipedia is, and it's not a game guide replacement nor an indiscriminate collection of lists. And teh copyvios... If notability was the only criteria, the list would probably stay as information regarding a new Electronic Arts game provided the list were rewritten as to not be a copyvio. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 19:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - How can it not be a question of notability according to what you're describing? If the issue regards the information, then we are making a judgment about whether that information is important enough to include. Everyking 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for consistency with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2. Punkmorten 10:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too specific information about too narrow scope. Wikipedia is not a game manual. JIP | Talk 11:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyright violation. NauticaShad e s 17:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oblivionise as yet more pointless fancruft wasting everybodies times. The Kinslayer 11:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete slowly and tortuously, unless someone wants to WP:IAR and speedy it as copyvio. --Alan Au 03:26, 25 October 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.