Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headshot


 * 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   redirect to head shot.  MBisanz  talk 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Headshot

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A rather pointless article with no sources and chances are there are none out there. It's more of a term or a definition then an actual article. It also fails WP:N Skater (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Head shot. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per Starblind. -- BlueSquadron Raven  19:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - "rather pointless article" &mdash; this seems very close to an I don't like it argument, and not a valid reason for deletion. "no sources and chances are there are none out there" &mdash; actually, chances are there are sources out there. "more of a term or a definition then an actual article" &mdash; I just read the article, which is 6,233 bytes, and it sure looks like a lot more than a definition to me. "It also fails WP:N" &mdash; I think there are enough sources to show notability (see above link). In fact, it is such a notable concept in gaming that it is used as the name of an energy bar marketed to gamers. In conclusion, I am convinced this is a notable concept in terms of video gaming, and that there are reliable sources to show notability and support the statements in the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Head shot. Linguist's WP:GOOGLE is useless in itself. I waded through several sources which gave only trivial coverage. Many of them are mentions of Head shot. This situation is reflected in the article. It is merely a collection of commentaries on games in which it is possible to shoot someone in the head. All of it seems to violate WP:OR and WP:GAMEGUIDE. I agree that the article cannot be improved beyond a a jargon guide entry. bridies (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per LinguistAtLarge. A notable concept in the field of computer game design, implemented by a wide variety of games.  Not a game guide, and quite plausible to source per the links Linguist provides.  Loads of potential to expand with sourced information.  For instance we learn that Quake's lack of support for headshots disqualifies it from being useful training for mass murderers, and that the popularity of the term is due to its use in Unreal Tournament , and that the head shot is an important part of the realism of CounterStrike (also at []). JulesH (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it can't exactly survive on these three sources alone. Google results are massively subjective and it takes extraction of the results and proof that they're reliable to justify their use on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As Haipa Doragon said, those aren't enough to write a passable article. That information belongs in the respective game articles and in the case of the ABC source, the First person shooter article. If "headshot" is indeed "a notable concept in the field of computer game design", then someone must surely have published an article that is actually about the headshot as a concept. bridies (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to head shot. I particularly don't buy the "there is some pseudo-information out there" argument, especially when many users (including myself after sifting through the first several pages sans false positives) have already tried searching. MuZemike 00:19, 6 April 2009 (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.