Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA (second 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 of the debate was DELETE. Neither of the two retention options offered (k/m) received any particular support. -Splash talk 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Structures of the GLA
Was on DRV, relisting debate as there is no consensus. I have no opinon on this matter. Archive DRV - Mailer Diablo 17:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This page should be Kept who ever nominated this page for deletion is Racist against Middle Eastern individuals because the USA or China page was not nominated at all. Furthermore this page just explain the basic buildings in the game and their function.  It does not include a stragetic usage or any glitches, prerequisites, or cheats like in game guides/ websites.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this is informational so just keep it.  The page is long enough as it is so it is a bad idea to merge it because it will be too long.  Someone worked hard on it and their work should be considered.  This article is  If you delete this page consider eliminating and/or merging pages with similar aspects such as:


 * 1) Infantry units of the USA
 * 2) Armoured units of the USA (game)
 * 3) Aerial units of the USA (game)
 * 4) Naval units of the USA (game)
 * 5) Infantry units of China (game)
 * 6) Armoured units of China (C&C: Generals)
 * 7) Aerial units of China (game)
 * 8) Infantry units of the GLA (game)
 * 9) Armoured units of the GLA (game)
 * 10) Structures of the USA
 * 11) Structures of the Chinese
 * 12) Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative
 * 13) Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative
 * 14) Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative
 * 15) Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod
 * 16) Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod
 * 17) Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod
 * 18) Structures of the Global Defense Initiative
 * 19) Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod
 * 20) StarCraft units and structures
 * 21) Warcraft section #2
 * 22) all pages in Category:MK Main Characters
 * 23) all pages in List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number
 * 24) merge or delete List of Mario series characters
 * 25) Ace Combat Zero section #4 should just be a list
 * 26) Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball all links below
 * 27) Units in Advance Wars
 * 28) List of Advance Wars COs
 * 29) all Character links on page Tekken characters
 * 30) all character links on page King of fighters
 * 31) all pages linked to  List of Soul Calibur characters
 * 32) Samurai Shodown series character section
 * 33) List of Street Fighter characters all links

Cs_california 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. That's beyond an encyclopedic description of the game, and into "gameplay guide" territory; just one of the things wikipedia is not. -- GWO
 * Strong Delete per GWO --Nick Y. 18:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge as per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. A game guide would explain how each structure is best used, while a game manual would contain a structures cost, tech level, and prerequisists, niether of which are present on this article. As an alternative to maintaining the whole the page we could also merge it to create one long list of strucutures, something I have been looking into offline. My view on the whole matter can be found here, and in either case I should still have about ten days of amnesty left. TomStar81 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Delete and Do Not Merge Its a good game, but Wikipedia is NOT A GAME GUIDE. Added Very Strong due to fact that the "as per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR" argument was used. Bwithh 23:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - WP is not a userguide or manual (WP:NOT 1.7.8). -- P199 23:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a user guide or manual -- and all the wikilawyering in the world won't change what this article is. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I do accept your arguement for what it is. At this point, I fully realise that no matter what I say or do nothing will save this page from its eventually deletion. Still, like Captain Smith of the Titanic, I feel the need to do what I can to save the page. TomStar81 04:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there no where this could be transwiki-ed to? - brenneman  {L} 09:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure it could be transwikied somewhere, C&C is one of three RTS games that comprise the "holy trinity" of the genre, the other two are Warcraft and Starcraft. TomStar81 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per GWO. --Metropolitan90 06:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, goes far beyond what is considered encyclopedic. Transwiki it to an appropriate C&C wiki if possible. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete again. WP is still not a game guide. --InShaneee 01:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Delete and Do Not Merge per Bwithh's idea. --Starionwolf 04:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge with TomStar's idea. Almost the whole Generals section is like this, so it would make sense to merge the whole thing together. And if this gets deleted, does that mean the rest of the article is also up for deletion, too? --AK-17 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am looking into retooling the presented information in order to conduct several mass merges for the info on the Generals Template. Currently I have three prototype structure layouts here, if anyone is interested in seeing them. TomStar81 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually planning to AfD the other Structure articles depending on how this discussion goes. --InShaneee 04:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In all fairness to that could I pester you to wait a little while? If the merging of the strucutures pages proves to be an acceptable compromise then there will not be any reason to delete the other pages. When I created the pages I designed them to ebe and flow to conform to wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, but for them to be reborn in a more acceptable form means coordinating a large amount of info, and that job only gets harder if there happens to be a time limit on the construction, as is the case here. TomStar81 06:41, 31 May 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.