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.--Kubigula (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Battlecruiser

[edit]

This is game-guide material (WP:NOT#GUIDE) accompanied by statistics (WP:NOT#INFO), neither of which adhere to our fiction-writing guide (WP:WAF) and the subject is unlikely to have any out-of-universe context of note. No notability outside the game is asserted (WP:Notability), and no independent references are provided (WP:Verifiability). Marasmusine 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 11:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nom pretty much sums it up - NN outside game, unsourced and gives game-guide material. Delete. Spawn Man 12:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can you say this articles not asserting notability outside the game is justification for deletion when articles you created don't do it, either? see, for example, Planet Harriers and Xconq. and a lot of other articles have shoddy assertions of notability. Styx (Spectrum game), for example. do you think that single mention in a magazine is enough to justify notability? in other afd's, editors have commented that multiple non-trivial sources must exist and yet you only have one trivial source? proving that the game existed is not enough, according to some wikipedians - proving that it had an impact beyond that of a normal game is what is necessary. frankly, i think you have quite the double standard.

as for the article, itself... it does need to be cleaned up. whether or not it should be deleted is something i'd only be able to say after the cleanup 209.209.214.5 14:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take those articles to AfD. They were mostly created on request, I don't mind one way or the other if they stay or not. Marasmusine 16:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article for a single unit for a game? Aside from the fact that the article does not assert the subject's notability, I highly doubt that any source would single out a Terran Battlecruiser as a notable subject. As it stands, the article is exactly game guide material that is disallowed by WP:NOT#GUIDE. In regards to 209.209's comment: if other articles fail to meet Wikipedia guidelines, please tag that for deletion. What the nominator has contributed has nothing to do with this debate. --Scottie_theNerd</font; 15:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i can't nominate other articles for deletion because i'm an anon user. also, what the nominator has contributed is relevant. why are the other articles seemingly exempt from the notability criteria? this is something i need to know if i'm to have a hope of understanding the nominators position. scientists improve their understanding of the world through tests. ie. our science tells us that when you put element A and element B together, you should get molecule C. that's all i'm trying to do. i'm trying to put two and two together to gain a better understanding of the nominators position. i, at the moment, attribute this to simple hypocrisy, but maybe the situation is complicated then that? maybe the nominators position is more complicated then that? i don't know but i sure as shit am not going to find out by holding my tongue as you seem to be suggesting 209.209.214.5 15:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious about contributing to Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you create an account. The nominator's articles and edits - or anyone's contributions for that matter - are not exempt from Wikipedia policy. If you believe those articles violate Wikipedia policy, either discuss it on the respective Talk pages or tag the article for AfD. If you are unfamiliar with the deletion process, I wish to inform you that editors like Marasmusine systemically tag articles regardless of their personal disposition. Some of them get deleted based on consensus; some don't. Some go through more than one AfD process. This happens all the time, and this is how articles that violate policy are removed or improved. I advise that you debate the deletion based on interpretations of Wikipedia policy rather than waging a personal war with the nominator. --Scottie_theNerd 16:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though in agreement with Scott, I have to note that in practice, an article written by an anon is much more likely to be deleted than the very same article written by an experienced user. This is contrary to Wikipedia's policy, but fact nonetheless. User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual units in RTS are never notable. User:Krator (t c) 16:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a simple one. I'll bet dollars to donuts that legitimate secondary references will be found for this topic. Do scholars write books on Battlecruisers? Maybe the New York Times does feature articles in the Sunday magazine section? MarkBul 18:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki so Delete The page is transwikied to the Encyclopedia Gamia. It can now be found here if anyone want to edit it. So delete it and prevent re creation --Cs california 08:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please stop spamming your site. and frankly, i think the idea of transwikification as a viable alternative is a joke. there's wikipedia, the wiki, and there are the tens of thousands of smaller wikis that no one cares about or knows about. if something can't be found on wikipedia it's on one of those 10,000+ other wikis. which one? well, that's anybodies guess

and of course, your "prevent recreation" position is decidedly self-serving. "if i can get wikipedia to delete every single article and i host the official mirrors of all of them, my wiki will be as popular as wikipedia! wheee!", you seem to be thinking 209.209.214.5 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well where else would game guide material go? Wikipedia gaming project allows game related material to be moved to one of these large gamimg pages at early 2006 because wikipedia decided to massively delete these pages because it is not a game guide. and the second thing is it is not my site I am just an admin on the site. Third you can also redirect the page. This article was created multiple times already thats why I put prevent recreation.

I also use to a creator of these pages until wikipedia decided to massively delete them. --Cs california 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the not-so-small matter of 209.209.214.5 not assuming good faith and not being civil. Marasmusine 10:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terran (StarCraft). Exceedingly game-guidey. JavaTenor 18:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? This is an article about a capital ship from StarCraft SciFi Universe, not a game guide. A game guide would explain, how to use that or another unit in game, explain tactics etc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian Spetsnaz (talk • contribs) 07:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why keep? Please explain how a single unit in StarCraft is notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 09:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, may be you explain me why a widespread starship in the StarCraft Universe could not have its desciption on Wikipedia, and a ONE starship Pillar of Autumn from Halo FPS (by the way, destroyed in the end of the first mission) could
- Please provide sources that state that the Terran Battlecruiser is widespread. It is one unit in one video game plus an expansion, soon to be two games. The Pillar of Autumn may differ in that it is the prominent setting for Halo and mentioned in Fall of Reach, but you will also realise that the article has not established its notability - something that may lead to an eventual AfD. Remember, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you're going to refer to other articles, use articles that are proven to be well-written by being designated GA or FA status. If you don't consider Pillar of Autumn to be notable enough for its own article, tag it for deletion. --Scottie_theNerd 04:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Battlecruiser is one of the most significiant space warship from StarCraft Universe...So why don't allow this article to stay on Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.209.3 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, please provide sources that state that the Terran Battlecruiser is "one of the most significant space warship from StarCraft Universe". Apart from several named capital ships, the Terran Battlecruiser has no featured role other than as a top-tier unit. More importantly, there are no independent sources that established the Battlecruiser's notability, which is really what the nomination is about. --Scottie_theNerd 04:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for this particular unit to have its own article. At the very least, a description of the units in a game or its abilities should be kept within the main article about the game itself. Outside of the context of this game, a "Terran Battleship" has no encylopedic use. I support this deletion. --Cncamp 12:04 03 October 2007

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.