Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various StarCraft articles


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS, although it's pretty clear that there is little support for retaining the article as they stand. Someone will have to draw people together somewhere else, I'm afraid, although transwiki has the greatest numerical support here. -Splash talk 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Various StarCraft articles
This nomination includes: These articles are all highly overspecific game-guide-style articles on various units, buildings, and tech upgrades in StarCraft. While they aren't written in the second person, they assume a great deal of knowledge about the specific workings of Starcraft on the part of the reader, and are useful only for their advisory content. As Wikipedia is not the place to teach people to do things (such as play StarCraft), delete the lot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * High Archon (StarCraft)
 * StarCraft Units
 * High Templar
 * StarCraft Structures
 * Gateway (StarCraft)
 * Shield Battery (StarCraft)
 * Forge (StarCraft)
 * Templar Archives (StarCraft)
 * Probe (StarCraft)
 * Zealot (StarCraft)
 * Medic (StarCraft)
 * Dragoon (StarCraft)
 * Damage types (StarCraft)
 * Extended Unit Death
 * StarCraft Secret Missions


 * For the love of Aiur, spare the unit articles at least. The building and fortifications should probably be merged in a list, but the units merit seperate articles, regardless of whatever cleanup they may need. --maru (talk) contribs 06:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do they merit individual articles? The only things that can be said about them are story/background spoilers that belong in StarCraft if anywhere at all, or how-to-play info that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The authors should send these articles over to the vgguides wiki. Please delete, articles on game units can't be appropriate unless they're independently notable. silsor 06:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Please note that StarCraft was recently a featured article. After checking all of these links, it appears that only High Templar is linked to by that featured article.  However, the rest of the articles are all interlinked to each other.  I think the best approach would be to rewrite one article to include the rest, like some sort of classificatoin of starfcraft units/characters.  At worst, all deleted EXCEPT High Templar.  No Vote. -- light  darkness (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What's different about High Templar, which is entirely trivia and how-to-play info, besides the fact that it is linked from StarCraft? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I was just pointing out that High Templar was the only article of the bunch linked to from a significat article (FA). -- light  darkness (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I was going to remove it from this AFD if there was some reason to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Generally, my opinion is that WP:NOT an instruction manual/game guide.  I might be able to put up with articles about characters/units that have become pervasive in popular VG culture (e.g. Zerg), but otherwise this seems like a rehash of strategy-guide material.  What's next, an article about "Archer (Age of Empires)"?  Then again, there's an article on Pawn (chess), and this is probably no worse than a lot of the Pokecruft floating around, so I'm a bit hesitant to recommend deletion. --Alan Au 06:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments. Cruft rush kekeke? Nifboy 06:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge articles into larger "master" pages on, let's say, Terran Units and Structures, Zerg Units and Structures and Protoss Units and Structures (I'd be willing to start these), and then delete. I'm all for retaining gamecruft, but only on a limited scale.  Marblespire 07:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki all to Starcraft and include a prominent link from the main starcraft article. I noticed an overload of strategy information on our starcraft pages a while ago, but was too lazy to do something about it.  It's worth keeping the effort that went into this, but it's unencyclopedic.  Wikibooks is the place for it. Night Gyr 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki As above, transwiki to starcraft. Far too good information to delete, and wikibooks provides a good home.  Am happy to help out with the move Kcordina 10:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the content. I think these are acceptable given the overwhelming notability of the game. Obviously, I would not support such complete coverage of every computer game. Also, I think that they should be merged and moved appropriately in accordance with Content forking (e.g. StarCraft characters might be appropriate). I'd make a more specific recommendation there, but I don't know that much about the games. Savidan 12:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge. The content for the most part is good, but it would perhaps be better merged per Marblespire. - SimonP 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Marblespire.--み使い Mitsukai 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki all to StarCraft and include link from StarCraft as per Night Gyr and Kcordina. Indeed, I have already begun this process. I agree that Wikipedia may not be the place for StarCraft articles, but also note that the content and writing is high quality and Starcraft is a popular game. All of those in favor of the transition, transwiki any good StarCraft articles you can find before some nihilist aristocrat obliterates everything. --Yunzhong Hou 14:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Said nihilist aristocrat (I like that one) would be happy to undelete any deleted articles for a transwiki. It wouldn't be the first time I had done so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki all as above. --InShaneee 17:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Wikipedia is not a gamers bible. GWO
 * Transwiki, StarCraft is one of the few games that can legitimately be seen as a worldwide cultural phenomenon... but that still doesn't mean wikipedia needs dozens of articles about the minutae of the game.--Isotope23 17:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Transwiki (as suggested per above) has been completed.[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  18:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki - now there's a good idea --Dinosaurdarrell 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Wikipedia is not a gamer bible. Wikibooks is. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki... at least get it off WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge. The content is good, but it is true that you could simply merge them into large groups, say Zerg Units/ Zert Structures, etc. Some of the above are simply superfluous, but the units pages appear fine to me. David 19:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever encyclopedic content there may be into a master "Units and structures in StarCraft" article, and transwiki the strategy guide stuff. –Sommers (Talk) 20:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe merge all units into one article, and all buildings into another.

PS. Can someone tell me how to transwiki a page? I plan to transwiki the above articles, but when I try to do it the page ends up somewhere else within Wikipedia and not WikiBooks. Can someone tell me what to type into the move destination text field? Thanks! --Yunzhong Hou 02:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep as appropriate. Kappa 09:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all, while having a presence in wikibooks and vgguides is nice, remember that starcraft and it's descriptions are not the type of thing you'd see in a book. Vgguides is an unnecessary wiki generally, too specific and not even a Wikimedia partner. The articles are not merely strategic, but also describe the story elements within Starcraft. One wouldn't delete a description of a classic novel and it's cast of characters, so this should be the same. That there are some stats or strategies along the way is no matter. I'd even say we need MORE articles on it, having one page for all units and structures is much too large, it should just be a liast page. Using groups would be good though. Tyciol 05:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * what Night Gyr 15:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete' or Transwiki don't keep it though. Not important enough alone. BrokenSegue 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. This game is being played by millions of people and cannot be dismissed as unimportant. Reference games should not be subject to the cruft deletion. However, I agree there is too much pages, regrouping seems a good solution. Pompom2309 12:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tyciol. Turnstep 14:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki all per Yunzhong Hou. Zelmerszoetrop 01:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briangotts (talk • contribs)


 * Merge into StarCraft Units. StarCraft Secret Missions doesn't need to be moved or deleted. Kimera757 15:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)