Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Army classes


 * 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. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

America's Army classes

 * — (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they should be deleted for the same reason:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia does not create original research. Statements on Wikipedia must be verifiable. The only reason I didn't db-a1 them (because their context is practically zero) is because they've been around for so long. There is enormous precedent for deleting game guide-like pages such as these. Here are just a few examples, in case you don't believe me. Axem Titanium 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to one of the game-related wikis. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --- RockMFR 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 03:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All per nom SUBWAYguy 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to America's Army. VegaDark 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to America's Army to make sure they are not re-created. Make them go away please! :O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 04:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of a redirect. These are not likely search terms, so Delete all. Wavy G 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Please do not redirect. These articles truly do not belong in any encyclopedia which prides itself on having factual content. Lose the lot.--Anthony.bradbury 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect all to America's Army. per above. —dima/s-ko/ 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see why there would be any complaints about redirecting these. The fact that these articles exist, and especially if you look at their edit histories, shows that enough people have visited these pages (via search or otherwise) to make redirects for each worthwhile. Comments like "Please do not redirect. These articles truly do not belong in any encyclopedia which prides itself on having factual content." I don't understand at all.  Redirects are not articles, they are redirects.  They also discourage recreation of the articles, and the edit history is preserved, both positive consequences. VegaDark 22:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all three (and do not redirect). To address VegaDark's perfectly reasonable comment, the idea of a redirect is to capture a reasonable and/or likely search term about which there is information in the encyclopedia, just not under that name.  It seems to me that if somebody was looking for information about the equipment used in America's Army, they would just type america's army (or, americas army, which is a redirect, as a common mis-spelling) into the search box.  I find it difficult to believe anybody would type america's army equipment into a search box.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or transwiki In Battlefield 2142 article, the section about players classes and weapons "has been suggested ... be split into a new article". But same article(s) for America's Army is requested to be deleted. Have some consistency please! -- Wesha 23:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed that stuff because it is blatant game guide material. The consistency issue is no longer. Axem Titanium 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, redirect or transwiki -- +1 to saving edit history. Current ontent is interesting for enough people (myself included) it would be a shame to drop it irreversibly. -- Wesha 00:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll probably want to transwiki it yourself since the edit history is unlikely to be kept. StrategyWiki is a good destination. Axem Titanium 00:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, we're not a game guide and this is best put in a game wiki. (Though I wonder what the nom means when invoking verifiability - the game itself is generally considered okay when plainly describing the game in question, and based on a cursory glance these articles don't seem to make any new big leaps of logic which would constitute original research...) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all three. Video game guides. Dragomiloff 00:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect all (merge equipment content) to main article I recommend merging the equipment content if its not already in the main article - as these are virtual versions of real weapons the actual US Army is trying to familiarize players with through their game. So its of significantly more notability than your average video game weapon set. Hoo-ah. Bwithh 07:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.