Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Half-Life 2 (2nd nomination)


 * 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.--cj | talk 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

List of weapons in Half-Life 2

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Ok, this was apparently nominated in October, but how it survived is frankly a mystery. First of all, it has not improved since the last time; second, as per precedent, such as the Halo weapons lists, it should be deleted, as per the reasons to be outlined; ah, now the reasons. First, its original research. Second, no sources, Third, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Finally, I quote wikipedia's policy from the admin's guide: Basically, the guidelines "which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. It is not veribfiable since it has no sources, has plenty of OR, and isn't written from a neutral point of view. 'Nuff said. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / contribs ) 01:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record: AfDs set as precedent, including the Halo ones I was involved with, back when I was a moron: Halo 2 weapons, and Weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved. The original discussion for this page is here. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / contribs ) 16:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC) "
 * There is a big difference between the Half Life series and Halo in notability, and also Wikipedia is inconsistent so the fact other articles have been deleted should not unfairly influence the decision for keeping other articles. Mathmo Talk 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's entirely POV- Halo and Half Life 2 both placed 15 and 16 in the top 100 games of all time, according to user voting at IGN. You don't have games called "Half-Life" clones, do you? They are both important FPSs and its certainly a fair comparison. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / contribs ) 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Was referring to the series as whole, arguably on a per game basis they are comparable. As for "Half-Life" clones, obviously games based on and cloning Half Life exist. So much so they even become very famous on their own right. Mathmo Talk 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain with comment. Please add wikilinks to the first AfD and the precendent that you noted above so that contributors can better assess this AfD. RoyalbroilT : C 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are added. Jaenop 05:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Edeans 05:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. You can go to the StrategyWiki article to see this.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide and wikipedia articles are not mere plot summaries. Nothing in this article even suggests that any of these in-universe fictional objects have any real-world significance whatsoever. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  06:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. MER-C 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ← A NAS  Talk? 08:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, firstly because it was incorrectly listed and thus baising voters. Secondly refering to the fact wikipedia isn't a game guide hardly matters, that page is not intented as a game guide neither would it greatly help gamers while playing the game. Did anybody consider asking on the article's page for sources? From looking at the talk page and history it would appear that has not been the case, that ought to have been the first port of call and not going to a hastly made AfD. Thus for these reasons I completely reject the idea this article ought to be deleted right now. (though having said that, feel free to try again later) Mathmo Talk 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, who but Halflife 2 players care what the console ID of the crowbar is? And apparently, this IS trying again later. It's the second nomination and (apparently) hasn't changed. -Ryanbomber 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't a very nice way of trying again for sources (talk pages with tags as needed is how you ought to first of all do it), and as you pointed out it has been AfD 'but it wasn't included in the nomination. It would have been very handy for past voters to go to there and see the many reasons given in the previous AfD for keeping it. As for reference to the variable names, this is hardly different than refering to error order of Euler's Method. How else than mathematicians would be interested in that? But that is exactly the point, they are the people who would read the article. Mathmo Talk 09:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:NOT a game guide, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Terence Ong 12:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question, which number under the indiscriminate collection of information subheading applies to this article? Secondly, this is not a game guide proving walkthroughs etc.. to players. As such you can't use that as an arguement for deletion and it should be discounted. Mathmo Talk 09:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Mathmo Talk 14:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and shove onto GameFAQs I'm normally against "delete as per being a game guide" nominations, but this is unquestionably useless to anyone who doesn't play Half-Life 2. There's also not a single source on this page. It's nicely written, but it's not for the Wiki at all. -Ryanbomber 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete,WP:NOT as stated it is no a game guide so its either deleted or moved into GameFAQs section cause it doesnt have any siginificance whatsoever. Cometstyles  talk
 * Delete per Adam Fuchs, and ship it to GameFAQs. 207.34.120.71 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced, irrelevant game guide. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, "irrelevant" to whom? Yourself I'll presume, that however doesn't mean it will be "irrelevant" to everybody. Neither is it sound basis for voting for deletion. Mathmo Talk 09:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant to anybody who doesn't play HL2. -Ryanbomber 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is not a game guide proving walkthroughs etc.. to players. As such you can't use that as an arguement for deletion and it should be discounted. Mathmo Talk 09:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a walkthrough, but it's a game guide. Weapon damage? Range? Location first found? That's pretty much textbook game guide. -Ryanbomber 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' per Wikipedia is not a Game Guide.-- danntm T C 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question, what specifically in WP:NOT applies? Secondly, this is not a game guide proving walkthroughs etc.. to players. As such you can't use that as an arguement for deletion and it should be discounted. Mathmo Talk 09:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Frag...er, Delete (c'mon, you wanted to say it) per nom. Like pretty much everyone has said, already. --Calton | Talk 04:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a massive failing of WP:NOT. For starters the where first found sections of the article qualify as 'walk-throughs', the whole thing reads like a section from a 'video game guide' and the usage advice moves down the route of a 'textbook'. Nuttah68 17:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm surprised it's survived this long. It's clearly written as a game guide; there's nothing encyclopedic about it. --Scottie theNerd 05:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As with the other weapon list precedents mentions, while the series/games certainly get substantial coverage and are notable, the weapons within them do not and are not. GassyGuy 14:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete upgrading due to WP:SNOW. -Ryanbomber 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I think a lot of people misconstrue what a "game guide" is, since most Wikipedia gamecruft doesn't really hold up to their definition of "guide". Anyway, you could donate it to StrategyWiki if they want it. Axem Titanium 04:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's information that I would more likely see in a game guide, I put it under that umbrella term. I think most of us subconsciously do just that. --Scottie theNerd 06:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contrary to poular belief, the article itself is not meant as a game guide, it is simply stating more information on the game. HOWEVER, this information is irrelevant to the game itself. Also, most likely no one cares. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.69.27.15 (talk) 14:39, 6 February 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.