Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault


 * 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.  Singu larity  06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Weapons of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault

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

This article fails WP:Notability, as it asserts no notability through reliable secondary sources. The list of in-game weapons violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOT. Game guide material. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 04:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. This fails both of those, and has no potential to establish notability. Any mention of weapons is far better covered in the main game article. -- Sabre (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - Violates WP:GAMETRIVIA. Fails to show that the weapons of SOCOM are notable. Nothing worth merging into the main article, since lists of items are discouraged, and WP:PLOT only permits the use of concise plot summaries and not comprehensive details of the fictional world. Randomran (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I might also consider a Speedy delete - quoted from WP:GAMETRIVIA aka WP:VGSCOPE aka WP:GAMECRUFT -
 * "Unsuitable content ..."
 * "3. Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts."
 * "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game."
 * I've displayed this guideline for the benefit of other editors. Randomran (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A section that you alone added and that does not reflect actual consensus. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop repeating that falsehood. That section has been there for a long time. Especially the part that says "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." The further edits to that section have been to add clarity. Any edits to that section that actually change its meaning have been rejected, as they change the consensus which has been that way for months. Randomran (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a guideline. In some games weapons may not be notable, but in a game that is about the military, they are.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not subjective. It is based on the general notability guideline. If this topic is notable, then provide reliable references independent of SOCOM that show these weapons are actually notable. Otherwise, nobody's opinion -- yours or mine -- is helpful. Randomran (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The interpretation of that guideline is subjective. The topic has been covered in reliabel references.  Look for some published magazine reviews of the game that mentions the weapons and combine those with published game guides to work as a mixture of primary and secondary evidence.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You look for it. I did, couldn't find anything, and that's why I nominated this for deletion. Randomran (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All these hits show that sources exist. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not reliable ones, though. Randomran (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lives in a gaming wiki, not wikipedia. --Oscarthecat (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:GAMEGUIDE. —  Wen li  (reply here) 22:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per what Wikipedia is. The article is simply not a game guide, as it is not a how-to.  Nor is it trivia as it concerns a major aspect of a military themed game.  Nor is it indiscriminate, as it focuses on a specific element of a specific game.  It is, however, notable and verfiable through reliable secondary sources.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:GAMECRUFT is not exclusive to how-to; it also includes lists of weapons, enemies, et cetera. WP:IINFO does not mean that articles should only include specific information.  Essentially, WP:IINFO states that "Simply because information exists on a subject, does not mean that it is notable." Also remember that notability is not inherited, simply because the subject of the main article is notable doesn't mean that this is. You have also failed to explain how the weapons of a military-based game are more notable.  If anything they would be less notable because they are either clones or direct copies of real-world weapons.ZappyGun,  his (empty) talk page,  and what he has done for Wikipedia.  14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists of weapons cannot legitimately be called the nonsense word "cruft". Notability can be inherited.  No one has successfully provided a real reason for outright deletion, maybe for merging, maybe for redirected, but there is simply no reason for outright deletion.  Weapons are notable aspects of video games and merit inclusion in our project.  We gain nothing by not covering them, whereas we may gain something by covering them.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a game guide. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:Writing about fiction. Article presents no out-of-universe context. The list, with its "in-game labels" is WP:OR. The short "new weapons" paragraph is sourced but can easily be integrated into the main article. Marasmusine (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Game-guide material. Almost entirely in-universe, largely unsourced, and with little apparent notability. Jakew (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note Cruftcruft and WP:ITSCRUFT. Other concerns can be addressed per SOFIXIT.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT does not apply here because Jakew is citing Wikipedia's guidelines rather than personal opinion. Furthermore, ITSCRUFT does not translate to "nothing is cruft". ZappyGun,  his (empty) talk page,  and what he has done for Wikipedia.  14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As others have suggested, the word itself is "unconstructive" and should never be used. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * An opinion to which you and others are of course entitled to hold. Jakew (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Transwiki'd over to StrategyWiki:SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Combined Assault/Weapons. -- Prod (Talk) 20:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making a reasonable effort to actually preserve this useful information. Just because it doesn't belong on wikipedia doesn't mean that it should be lost completely. Randomran (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, pure game guide material which, thanks to Prod's efforts, has now found an appropriate home on a gaming wiki. --Stormie (talk) 07:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that this is a valid search term and there is a valid redirect location, I see no reason for an outright deletion. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:55, 26 May 2008 (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.