Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Gameplay


 * 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 No Concensus. Teke ( talk ) 19:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World Gameplay
This is nothing more than an instruction manual for this game, and wikipedia is not a game guide. Indrian 01:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Empires: Dawn of the Modern World --Wafulz 02:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, explaining how a game works is not the same as being an instruction manual. Kappa 02:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ummmm, that is exactly what an instruction manual does, explains how something works. This is a guide on how to play the game and on how various facets of the game work.  That makes this a game guide in violation of official policy.  Indrian 02:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * An instruction manual explains how to do something, that's what "instruction" means. An encylopedia's duty is exactly to explain how various facets of the game work. Kappa 03:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever read an instruction manual for a computer game? They usually include both information on how to play the game as well as information on what various things do so that the player knows how best to use them.  Anyway, why don't I just quote WP:NOT: "Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks."  I have often been at odds with you on AfD, but this is the first time I have seen you blatantly disregard an official policy. Indrian 04:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Game manuals obviously have to explain how the game works, in the same way an encylopedia does. We've already established that this isn't a "how-to". Kappa 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And pray tell how is this not a video game guide? Indrian 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Wafulz. TJ Spyke 03:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and/or Transwikify to Wikibooks kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikibooks is not the place for game guides any longer. I believe you're looking for StrategyWiki. -- nae'blis 03:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete void ofany encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a publisher of game guides. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: this is Wikipedia, not GameFaqs. I doubt Wikibooks would accept this either, so transwikifying is not an option.  In addition to being a game guide, it's also largely incomprehensible: what on earth is "Citzens [sic]] build buildings, with the exception of England and the United Kingdom" supposed to mean, and why is it such an important fact that it's in the lead section?  Bizarre.  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about it not being able to transfer to wikibooks. I think that that if you are completly unmovable on keeping this, other solutions can be found. You're saying that wikibooks won't accept this? All it takes is a little love and a little editing to make it up to snuff for transfering (I've already done a spell check and rewrote the into). If you are not willing to accept that solution we could tranfer to it to | strategy wiki. Your basis for no one else not accepting this is justified, but I think fixing it is fizable (and already underway). Of course I'd like to keep it, but I'm willing to negoiate. What are your thoughts? --Clyde Miller 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Um...I'm the person that wrote this article, as well as much of Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, and I wasn't aware that I was breaking policy with this. I thought it added understanding to the game article if someone wants to look further into the game or how it's played. I know it looks like I suck at writing, but I haven't had time to edit this and Empires: Dawn of the Modern World simultaneously. I did most of this myself, but I could see about minimizing it or wikifying it if you guys don't like it. If you look at the main article I was able to summarize the gameplay with the knowledge in mind that if someone wanted to look up more into the gameplay they could so. Empires: Dawn of the Modern World is up for GA nomination right now, and I'm just worried it will be failed because the gameplay article was suddenly wiped from the face of the Earth, which would make the Gameplay section look rather pathetic. I'm also rather sad that Indrian decided to go after this one article. I thought I was doing a good thing by making this only one article. I noticed that articles like Runescape have 16 articles that could be considered exactly the same thing as I'm writing, so would it be better for me to split this into a few more articles and you guys can decide which sections should be up for deletion? I'm really up for any solution other than deleting, and I'm hoping that can be done.--Clyde Miller 21:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Userify; these are genuine concerns, and we may eventually be able to use some of this. JCScaliger 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with a lot of video game articles like this one (as well as articles about TV series and books) is that they seem to cater to people who are familiar with the topic...extremely familiar with the topic. Maybe if articles like this one could be written more for people who have never played the game (or never played video games at all, *gasp*) they would fit in with the other articles a bit more easily. As it stands, I can't really make a decision about this article because it doesn't relate much of anything to real lifeTM. If the article is kept or userfied, a severe amount of wikification and general cleanup in tone and spelling is needed. But it may have a shot. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I cannot understand why someone would want to delete this long and informative article. Some people don't understand this game and think games of this sort have no importance. This viewpoint is not correct in my opinion: many people think this is important. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * This is a straw man. Indrian 03:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A game isn't important, noteworthy, relevant or has encyclopedic value just because someone claims it has in the middle of a pile of baseless accusations and personal attacks. I suggest that if you try to defend the article you keep your arguments objective and on topic. --Mecanismo | Talk 11:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A very sharp and ironic comment. Can you help me identify what in my comment constituted an "attack" rather than a harmless statement of my opinion? I would like that. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * In your vote, you stated that the people voting delete do not understand the game or its importance. However, the reason given for deletion is that the article violates policy by being a game guide and no one here has advocated that the article about the game itself be deleted.  Therefore, your comment is a straw man because it attacks an issue that you made up rather than one in controversy, and it is an attack because you call people ignorant rather than attacking the policy arguement.  Anything still unclear? Indrian 21:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It may have been a straw man (that depends on whether you think there was some "real issue" that I was ducking in my post), but was no attack. What I wrote: "Some people don't understand this game and think games of this sort have no importance." What you say I wrote: people voting delete do not understand the game or its importance. Those are two different statements. If I wrote, "people voting delete" have no idea about the importnace of the game, that might be a personal attack. But I was making a more general point that the article deals with a subject about which some (most?) people know or care very little but yet that should not preclude it from being on wikipedia. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
 * The issue is not the game's importance, but whether or not this is an encylopedic explantion of the mechanics of the game. Kappa 00:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and redirect to the game's page. Eusebeus 20:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and re-direct to Empires: Dawn of the Modern World. Edgecution 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Transwiki it to Wikibooks. Davodd 09:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sabotage Mine: Reduces a mine to rubble which must be moved before mining can proceed says it all. Even the title announces the WP:NOTness of the article. ~ trialsanderrors 18:09, 29 August 2006 (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.