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. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft II Confirmed Units and Structures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was recently forked off the main Starcraft II article, after the creating editor had content removed per a prior discussion on the talk page. This article is, apparently, supposed to be some kind of list of units and structures in Starcraft II - however, since the game is not out yet, they are only "confirmed" units, so far. However, this is something Wikpedia is not - namely a guide to an unreleased game. Article was previously prodded, but the notice was removed without comment by an anonymous user. Haemo 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a crystal ball. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sorry TomStar but even CAPSLOCK will not make this speedy-deletable since it does not match any of the criteria. The article should be deleted of course and I'd be surprised if anyone objects. Pascal.Tesson 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as crystal balling article that will become instantly useless once firmer info about the game is available. Ford MF 03:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SNOW. The article is a content fork created expressly because speculation/listcruft of this nature was excised from the parent article. There's not a snowball's chance of this surviving AfD, due to its speculative nature (the units are not "confirmed" by Blizzard, and may not be in the final game) and zero verifiability. -- Kesh 05:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I do not agree speedily of this nomination. Some units and build can be confirmed and verified by seeing StarCraft II's official videos. However the game are still under development and things may be changed drastically, but I do not believe that will happen. Carlosguitar 05:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete* Every unit and building in this list has been confirmed by Blizzard except for the Succubus.

Comment Wikipedia is not a unit list or game guide. It also violates many of wikipedia guidelines. Btw i don't think IP users can vote. You need to register. --SkyWalker 15:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt til we have a full list. I want to see Starcraft 2 as much as anyone, but take the speculation to one of the many many video game forums. --Korranus 06:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT. Salt to prevent the many recreates i can see from such an article Willow177 13:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & Salt mmmm starcruft. /Blaxthos 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete As per above. --SkyWalker 08:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've nothing else to add, I agree with the above. Especially the salt. JMalky 15:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Do we really need to know that stats of every new unit? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information darthsuo 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For reasons stated by TomStar81 and Kesh. Dodo48 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if the units and building info can be built on the facts of blizzard word, videos, starcraft 1 info but renamed to StarCraft II units and buildings Agentheartlesspain 23:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think the information in there should be added to the main article on Starcraft II Observer31 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note; this material was already extensively discussed on Starcraft II, and roundly rejected as speculative, indiscriminate, and generally un-encyclopedic. This page was created specifically because that material was rejected on the "parent" page, in order to circumvent this consensus. I would strongly oppose any attempt to merge this material to Starcraft II. --Haemo 03:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Adequately covered in StarCraft II, considering the pre-alpha state of the game. Can't have an authoritative list at this point. MrZaius^talk 09:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just keep on updating these info to make it more accurate. 210.213.80.254 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC) — 210.213.80.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Accuracy will come in due time. Add links showing where this information comes from. I'd say keep it because a lot of people are starving for accurate information and this is IMHO pretty accurate. jfyelle 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC) — jfyelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep but no Merge There have been many recent contributions to keep this site page very accurate, despite the fact that most of this IS covered on the regular Starcraft II page, this page was just created to help straighten out and organize the Starcraft II stuff since something like this was something the orginal Starcraft game didn't have, mostly because the website covered it all. The page can get a LOT more discriptive later on once more and more units are revealed and confirmed. The page despite having the deletion icon on it has come a long way from when it started off. If the game happens to get sided like Ghost did I dont mind the deletion though. User:Retloc 5:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - It is simply a sorry excuse for a list. Poorly written, no sources, complete Original Research, speculation based on fan sources, repeat of information previously listed, and simply bad grammar + formatting. Putting that aside, the article itself is pointless, and completely violates WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL, and possibly WP:TRIVIA. Serves no use whatsoever in an encyclopedia as it cannot be properly sourced. Suited for a fansite, and nothing else. I'm actually surprised this kind of discussion has gone on for so long.....— Floria L 10:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Floria L. I don't disagree with unit lists, but this 1) is speculative, 2) could easily change, 3) information on an unreleased game, and 4) while I don't disagree with unit lists, unit stats for games should be kept for fansites and the official site, even after the game is released. bob rulz 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - OR, Fan, Crystal Ball, NOT: Game Guide. --User:Krator (t c) 12:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete we don't have such an article for completed games, why should we have it for games underdevelopment. --Voidvector 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.