Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bentus

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 redirect all but Ships of Homeworld to Ships of Homeworld. This will leave previous versions intact in history so folks can work on transwikiing; keep that one. Mango juice^talk 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bentus[edit]

Original research, no references, and highly unencyclopedic. It is highly unnecessary for any video game to have a listing for each of its units as well. Delete as well as the following...

Also listing:

Similar also nominating:

See also here for a similar AFD.

Wickethewok 05:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all as fancruft. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all as non-notable and very minor game details. MLA 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all. I agree with the nom, although I would phrase it to say "It is highly unnecessary for most video games to have a listing for each of their units." But God help you if any fanboys show up. -- H·G (^words/_works) 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seeing as the article was already nominated for deletion once, I see no reason no nominate any parts of it agian, if all other ships have their own article why shouldn't these?--Awesome Username 15:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, I added some similar articles to the list above that are the same just on different ships. Wickethewok 16:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Save all. First of all, good work for whoever added this as an AfD, you did it incorrectly. It was previously nominated for deletion, and obviously it was kept. Because you repeated the process instead of making it a 2nd article for deletion, that record is now gone. To address individual points... First, you can't delete something for being "Fancruft". WP:Fancruft is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy, and the sources it cites such as WP:Importance are frequently only proposed thus not universally agreed upon. If you want to delete the articles for being Fancruft, first you have to get Fancruft established as a reason for deletion; until then, your argument is without merit. As far as the "Original research, no references, and highly unencyclopedic." accusition goes, they're false. There is no original research; stats and background histoy of the units can be found in technical game manuals, the games themselves, or else online. While it is true that about half of the pages in question do not have external sources listed, you should keep in mind that these articles are currently undergoing overhauls by Awesome Username and myself, being worked on daily to improve quality and add sources. As far as being "highly unencyclopedic" I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." The information being presenting in these articles can be verified, and the articles don't violate any of the other Wikipedia:Not guidelines. No, we're not providing How-To's so don't wave that around either. Back to nomintating this for deletion, you have utterly no basis for it. The category with criteria for deleting it would most likely include: Is not suitable for Wikipedia (already addressed, doesn't violate anything); Original research, including the coining of neologisms (no original research is presented); Vanity page (obviously not applicable); Advertising or other spam (not applicable either); and Completely idiosyncratic non-topic (N/A as well). If the quality, sources, and sizes of the articles are problems, then put in the appropriate templates to bring attention to them so they may be addressed (although chances are I will fix up all the articles eventually anyway). If you don't think that the articles themselves are information worthy of being on Wikipedia, I'd ask what the defining line between permissible and non-permissible is; I for one have spent hours at a time reading about the various weapons, vehicles, characters, etc in works of fiction such as games and movies, and I find it hard to believe that nobody else does. I will point out that for "minor characters" in works of fiction the general guideline seems to be to combine them into one article called "List of minor characters in ____" but this wouldn't work so well for Homeworld stuff: First of all, the Ships of Homeworld article (equivalent to a list of minor characters) is already quite long, if every article were to be a length such as Kushan Scout, Kushan Mothership, and Kharakid Scaffold then as you can imagine the page would become quite large, certainly more than the < 30 KB target size. Although I suppose that's really not an issue, as you didn't propose merging, and you want to delete the Ships of Homeworld page entirely. Really, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish or what point you're trying to make. There are articles entirely dedicated listing the names of TV show episodes, for example, and I actually do use those regularly. Lists can be quite useful. "Non-notable minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a 'List of characters.' This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. The list(s) should contain all characters, races, places, etc. from the work of fiction, with links to those that have their own articles." So you see, we actually are following Wikipedia guidelines here... for more reasons why keeping "cruft" articles can be useful, I point you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Counter-Strike maps. --Twile 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can someone with a bot add the tag {{subst:afd|Bentus}} to the top of the newer additions? It would be much appreciated. Wickethewok 17:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, ~~nor is it a gameguide~~ hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- You're right, it's not a game guide. Good call there. So how does non-game-relevant information fall under the category of being a game guide?--Twile 17:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - I don't see how these articles are not relevant to the game. The articles subjects are objects found in Homeworld games. Furthermore, the articles were created to serve the player of Homeworld computer games. IMO, the articles are very game guide-ish. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - These articles are absolutely not game guides. If they were, we would've included sections like "Tips for usage" and such. The only such information provided is in the Roles section of the template, which more or less says what the ship is used for (Anti-fighter defense, for instance). Take a look at Kushan Heavy Corvette to see what I mean. Eventually all the articles will be akin to that, providing a brief historical background, technical details, etc. The articles were not "created to serve the player of Homeworld computer games" as you put it; the Game of the Year Edition of Homeworld (which has been retailing for 5-6 years, thus the only one that someone might realistically come across) comes with a strategy guide telling how to use everything. A player would be better suited reading the provided material for "how to" and "game guide" content. Let me put it this way: If there's an article on cheese, does it mean you should nominate it for deletion because it's a recipie? No. Even if it talks about how cheese is used in cooking, unless it provides recipies that are aimed at instructing how to specifically use cheese, it's not a "how to" article on cheese. --Twile 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Hi again! Per your further explanation of the nature of the articles natures, I've revised my deletion reasoning a bit. I still feel that these articles fail WP:NOT, however. The articles are on minor objects in a computer game, which are hardly notable enough to warrant articles in an encyclopedia. I also believe your cheese comparison to be a bit extreme, but thank you for your further explanations. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 18:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete all per hoopydink--Nick Y. 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep all - I'm sorry, but there are far, far too many articles listed for one deletion. Please break this into smaller chunks.--Nydas 18:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They're all the same type of article (ships from the game Homeworld). What would be the point of making them into smaller groups? It seems like that would just scatter the arguments across several AFDs and make it more difficult to find a consesus. Would you prefer if I moved the list to a subpage so that it doesn't look ridiculous? Wickethewok 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I think that both supporters of keeping the articles and supporters of deleting them would agree that it's best to consider them all at once, if they're all of the same type. Whatever outcome is reached, it will automatically apply to all of these. If these were nominated separately, the process would take much longer and be more prone to possible inconsistencies. -- H·G (^words/_works) 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- - Comment. I partially agree with both of these. For the smaller ship articles, mainly things that aren't Mothership-class, I can see how the conclusion reached for one would be the same for all of them, and I'd rather not have to defend every one of them constantly. However, for things like the Kushan Mothership and Somtaaw Explorer, those are some of THE big ships in the game, the equivalent of Major Characters in a work of Fiction. Those do get their own Wikipedia article regardless of whether you think a minor character should or not. Funny that the large ones were the ones initially nominated for deletion. --Twile 20:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - this afd list contains ships from three different games (not just Homeworld), and lumps together ships of vastly different importance, ranging from ships that appear only in a solitary singleplayer mission such as the Junkyard Dog to the iconic Kushan Mothership. I'd suggest starting with the most obviously crufty entries - ships that only appear in singleplayer missions. --Nydas 21:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Wholly unencyclopedic, pure game-guide, and no impact outside of Homeworld players. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Disclosure: I have only read a sampling of the articles. The ones I've seen do not establish notability outside the game itself. The quality of the articles is decent, but the subjects simply don't merit coverage individually. GassyGuy 21:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~*Keep All~~ - This is a hard one. The articles, if they are all made to be the target size of Kushan Heavy Corvette, are much, much too large if merged together into a single page. And even if they were, the nom ha seen fit to submit that page for deletion as well, which flies in the face of every other "listing of minor characters" page. Maybe they should be merged together into sections- a page for fighters, a page for corvettes, etc. But the impression that I'm getting is that most of the people here are not looking at the articles, they're just reading the opinions of others written here and voting "delete per nom" or per above. Something needs to be done to this group- I agree, that's a lot of pages there. But deleting them all isn't the answer. --PresN 21:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Comment - also, I agree with Nydus- if you disagree with me and say that they shoudl be deleted, they should be broken up into chunks to decide, not cramming 30 articles of differing importance into one afd. --PresN 21:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- See, reading Kushan Heavy Cruiser, I don't see one sentence that belongs in an encyclopedia. It's entirely in-universe, seems to be paraphrased from a game guide or manual, and doesn't make a distinction between why the people in the Homeworld universe use it and why people who play Homeworld use it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Merge, condense, and redirect all into an article such as "_____ on the Bentus". That way, we can keep some of the information for those who feel passionate about it, and keep it all under one roof. I don't think it's that insignificant. AdamBiswanger1 21:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userfy to Twile and by all means let him transwiki them - but since it's likely to be a long job, Delete after they have been userfied. Delete all as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transwiki/merge to wikia:homeworld. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Transwiki - I always forget about those other darn wikis. Yeah, move it all there. Leave the Ships of Homeworld page, and maybe some of the more important ones, like the mothership articles, and just put something on the Ships of Homeworld page about how the actual pages are over at wikia:homeworld. --PresN 22:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transwiki. I'm revising my stance. Everything up until now, to me, seemed to indicate that such a thing as these articles were entirely permissible on Wikipedia; however, the in-universe stuff is something I can't contest. While it would be nice for Wikipedia to be a one-stop shop for all your information needs, if the relevance of that information in regards to the here and now must be stated, there really isn't much for the majority of the Homeworld series ships. Here's what I propose: Leave the articles alone. Every one of them. Especially significant ships, such as the Flagships of the various races, and the Ships of Homeworld article, will be left more or less as they are now. I will oversee the transfer of information from Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Hiigara wiki, and change all Homeworld-ship-related Wiki links to point to the new pages there instead. Likewise, on the Ships of Homeworld page, the links will be changed to point to the new pages on the alternate Wiki. Current articles, such as Kushan Scout and Somtaaw Recon, which cannot be meaningfully be changed to reflect an outside-universe opinion, will become redirects to the Ships of Homeworld page. This way, the information that I and others have poured over for hours will not be lost, and will find a place where people won't complain about its relevance. How's that sound to people? --Twile 23:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds fine. I'm glad you're willing to compromise AdamBiswanger1 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Transwiki. This is one of the most reasonable of contested AFD of a game article(s) I have seen. Major elements here, details there. It is just as accessible and allows Wikipedia to be more formal. Please keep all of the articles as redirects. This is one of the strengths of Wiki, finding the information you need even when you approach the search from the 'wrong' direction. Dimitrii 13:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blast them off of here and transwiki. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'Prepare for takeoff to wikia:homeworld. Baseball,Baby! ^balls^•^strikes 00:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transwiki per twile--Awesome Username 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete/Transwiki great game but all that content is not for WP. --Pboyd04 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Save and/or condense Either keep the articles and leave them alone (Wiki has plenty of space; these articles do not, in fact, violate the rules; there are plenty of articles in Wikipedia that should perhaps be Wiktionary entries or else be deleted altogether and yet remain without question), or condense them into a single, pithy "Ships of Homeworld" style page for each race. Significant ships, like Bentus, the Mothership, and the Naggarok, should be left as is if only due to their significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.147.113 (talk • contribs) 05:38 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User has 6 edits hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Save and/or condense Its rediculous to delete all of this. I think it is a great idea to condense the sets of ships from these games into 3 or four individual articles while leaving the current articles pertaining to the canon as they are. There are articles about lots of fictional things, persons, and theories, and it is not unreasonable to have a few pages dedicated to the fictional devices and ships in the homeworld series. It should not be a gameguide, and so far it isn't. Wikipedia should have a plethora of knowledge, videogame universes included. As long as someone is organized and obeys the rules, they should be allowed to spend all the energy they want writing about ships and thier purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.85.122 (talk • contribs)

Sockpuppet hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - The problem is that, upon further inspection, many of the articles in question do not fit with Wikipedia's Writing About Fiction policies. They would have to be kept if they had information told from an "outsider" perspective, such as commenting on how a certain ship design was inspired by a particular real life aircraft, or how the Kushan Mothership appears on the game box of Homeworld, or things along those lines. Wikipedia doesn't let you write about Fiction from an inside perspective (talking about the article from the perspective of being inside the series) or from an outside perspective if you're giving advice, such as recipies or game guides or FAQs. I do think Wikipedia has made an error with this policy, because although it's good to have an outside perspective for some things, if you require that you limit the sorts of articles you can have, and the intelligent, useful linking. For example, while most of the information about the Cryo Trays is in-game and shouldn't be there according to present guidelines, if you were reading about Cryogenics and wanted to see some examples of where it was in fiction, it might be interesting or useful to see how multiple places implemented it. If the article were limited to "This is a large orbital tray holding cryogenically frozen people" it would be of utterly no use, whereas the "gamecruft" material that people seem to hate so ferverently might be useful to the individual interested in Cryogenics. --Twile 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and/or condense. Deleting all these articles at once seems like an overtly hostile gesture. Furthermore, it establishes a dangerous precedent. If we were to delete all in-depth articles from video games, that would require us to delete most of the articles in Half-Life 2's entry, The Elder Scrolls' entry, and so forth. Really, that seems a bit overstepping, don't you think? 72.234.85.122's comments above more or less get at this. However, taking Wikipedia's Writing About Fiction policy into account (I disagree with its current iteration, but we'll save that for another time), these articles could use some condensing, or perhaps being merged into one of those "big list" articles on a faction basis. More importantly, that bit about 'Outsider perspective' or what have you should be satisfied. Simply deleting them because they don't quite fit a specific policy, especially when said articles are well-written, quite useful, and wholly salvageable, strikes me as being thick-headed, and Wikipedia cannot abide thick-headedness.24.161.191.234 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User has ~10 edits hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep all'. The guy nominating this stuff for deletion does so for anything he personally dislikes-- I suggest everyone view his past attempts to remove Gundam-related material. Jtrainor 19:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I assure you I have nothing personal against Homeworld. If you have read my nomination along with my comments on other game-related AFDs, you will see that I am simply trying to implement Wikipedia's policies of verifiability and no original research as well as keeping Wikipedia a source of encyclopedic content. I would ask you to assume good faith. I want what is best for Wikipedia as I am sure you do as well. If we disagree on what is appropriate content thats fine, but I assure you I haven't nor will I never nominate anything because I "personally dislike" it. Wickethewok 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought we'd gone over this before. There is NO original research, the information can be obtained from reading manuals or playing the game. If that's original research, then so is reading anything or watching, say, a movie. Furthermore the information is verifiable, as it's not original. Yes, it's not all cited, but it can and will be cited eventually, and might I point out that a great number of Wikipedia articles lack citations and those aren't instantly AfD. Thus your only point is what's "Encyclopedic" which is a highly debatable point. I'm willing to admit that many of these articles do not conform to the Writing About Fiction guideline (which I again feel is highly flawed, "Luke, I am your father" is an important bit of information that can't be conveyed easily or at all from an outside-universe perspective), however, I won't stand by while you restate incorrect grounds for deletion. Don't tell people to assume good faith either; it's not exactly good faith to nominate articles for deletion because they have fixable shortcomings. Tag them for improvement, citations, etc instead of automatically trying to get them deleted by the hundreds. If you don't try to see them improved first, it looks like you're aggressively deleting them for the sake of deleting them, not because of what they actually are or may become. Factoring in your past attitudes towards game "cruft" related articles, it doesn't look like you're assuming good faith, and that you just have a vendetta against such articles. Since you hold me in high regards why not humor me and consider revising your ideas based on the input of others? --Twile 14:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Keep and condense Per 24.161.191.234. 66.27.107.6 21:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sockpuppet hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete All fancuruft. --Cheesehead 1980 13:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[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.

anhducwiki7

Monday, September 26, 2022