Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of StarCraft

Gameplay of Starcraft
Delete: Game instructions and strategies aren't encyclopedia material. Lhlhlh 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a gameguide at all, but a reference for game mechanics and history of professional players. This featurette has a wealth of information and the author put a ton of research into it. The analysis of gameplay is spot on, this article is very well written and informative.
 * Delete as gamecruft and how-to. Brian G. Crawford 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete gameguides must die &rArr;    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  00:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Well written and relevant article. An encyclopedia is meant to be an attempt at a comprehensive collection of human knowledge.  It provides more than just a guide alone but relavant information regarding the mechanics of the game, which is of use to those desiring research on the game, just as much so as a discussion of the mechanics of basketball or poker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.140.121.137 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Significant sub-article of a good (featured) article. This is also *not* a strategy guide or instruction manual, but rather a description of the gameplay (among other things). Try actually reading the article next time. ShardPhoenix 06:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: ShardPhoenix fails to disclose that he/she is a previous contributor to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.90.110 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Such disclosure is not necessary. And please sign your contributions. Sandstein 06:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete cruft, and yes it reads exactly like a cross between a manual and a gameplay guide. WP:NOT. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. You guys seriously need to read the article.  I admit I used to contribute to the article, and I've been a fierce opponent of fancruft, but realize the article isn't so much about how to play the game as much as an analysis of the gameplay and the professional scene.  It's well written; it's not just a compilation of strategies; at the very most it should just be rewritten.  Certainly not deleted.--Etaonish 14:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We've read it. The first half reads like a manual, the second half like a strategy guide, and player rankings don't really belong here either. 156.34.89.249 04:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the content could be added to the existing wikibook, though. 156.34.89.249 04:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Mostly cruft. Some content has merit, as per Etaonish, but it's still unsourced WP:OR. Sandstein 06:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment/Request I don't see how any of this is "cruft" in the sense of being either a strategy guide or a manual. Can someone quote some objectionable section if you think so? I didn't write the upper sections but to me they read like a description (that could be useful to a number of people), not a prescriptive guide. People seem to be aggressively slinging around terms like "fancruft" just because this is an electronic game. I doubt a similar description of a sport would attract this level of negative attention. Even if the article needs to be modified somehow, simply deleting it would seem a huge waste given the large amount of information here that is not easily available in compiled form elsewhere. Also see Magic:_the_gathering for an example of a similar article that is also perfectly worthy of Wikipedia (it's even on the "good article" list). ShardPhoenix 07:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wikibooks. This is actually decent well written, and I would call for the same to happen of an article of this same nature on say football. Kotepho 12:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We do apparently have things such as Category:Football (soccer) tactics and skills, American football strategy, American football defensive schemes, American football rules, Category:American football plays, etc so there is clearly acceptance of this sort of thing. That doesn't mean I like it though. Kotepho 13:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)