Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the USA

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 of the debate was delete. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Structures of the USA

This is part of a guide on how to play Command and Conquer. Wikipedia is most emphatically NOT a how-to guide - this is stated specifically in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - and as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the GLA and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structures of the Chinese, this should be deleted forthwith. This is basically an abuse of Wikipedia's free hosting to allow someone to have images on their GameFAQs guide. There is also a crapload more of these GameFAQs-style pages, visible via Template:C&CG, which should all die. Grrrargh, it makes me cross. Strong delete. Proto||type 13:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete My command is that this article be conquered. Get it? -- Kicking222 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how-to. Kafziel 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. PJM 14:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GameFAQs guide —M e ts501^talk 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Trebor 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; how-to guide. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Anyone care to do a mass nomination? — Haeleth Talk 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's coming after (and if) this 'article' is succesfully expunged. Proto||type 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "I got the message" didn’t everyone else get? I understand the pages can not stay here in their current form, but this is only making things worse since the recreation of any deleted material is an automatic speedy delete. Componding the problem is that I can't freeze the pages or otherwise indicate that they are not "live" for editing, and I can not simply blank the pages until I reach a WP:NOT friendly solution. I am to the point of simply giving up with the project, as ABSOLUTLY NO ONE seems to one to cut me any slack. What do I have to do to convice the community to back off while I retool the pages? TomStar81 19:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep the pages on your own computer (possibly with a local Wiki) until you find an appropriate Wiki to keep them on. (Oh, and my vote is Delete.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I, for one, didn't get any part of "I got the message"... where did you say that, Tom? I assure you that, for my part, this is nothing personal - I haven't seen or voted on any other Command and Conquer pages, and this is the first I've heard about a larger issue. Kafziel 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stated that back when the China strucutres page can up for deletion. It was intend to convey that I had gotten the message regarding WP:NOT and these pages (by which I mean all of the structures pages) and that I would work on retooling them to make them more Wikipedia friendly. It is not that these pages can not be on wikipdia, its just that they can not be on wikipedia in their current form. Thats why I have been working to find a solution to the problem, but every time a page ends up on AFD it screws me that much more because the number of options I have grow that much smaller. The larger issue here is that RTS and TBS games rely on a collection of otherwise unremarkable units and strucutures for gameplay, and Wikipedia does not acknowlage this fact, so I am effectively waging a two front war to find that happy medium where the info present is WP:NOT friendly. Compounding the problem is that lots of people will vote delete for the info, but only a very limited number will suggest alternative outlets for it, and no on has of yet suggested a way that the info could be presented here safely. TomStar81 20:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't, and most users will agree that it shouldn't. Why not try usenet, or set up your own wiki? Kafziel 20:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have the technical savvy to set up my own wiki, and it can stay here. What I am looking at doing is borrowing the StarCraft setup for units and structures and adopting that for use for the Generals units and structures, but before that can happen I have to figure out how that table works and how each of the factions units and structures relate to each other. Thats a two week job for me. I can do it, if given the chance, its just that no one wants to give me the chance ;) TomStar81 21:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that. Kafziel 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, but true. Just for the record though, I have been working for about three weeks on different replacement schemes for the strucutures. If anyone is interested, you can check out the versions here, but remeber that this page is "mine" in so far as a page on wikipedia can be "mine", and the schemes pesented are ment as brainstorms, nothing has yet been set in stone. TomStar81 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that the link Tom gives - User:TomStar81/Definition Debate - has all the text of all the game guide articles he made, and so the requests he makes for 'give him a chance' are misplaced. How-to guides have no place, at all, on an encyclopaedia; it doesn't matter how you try and crowbar it in. And once I clear this stuff out, I'm going after the StarCruft. Proto||type 10:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. You might want to try this wiki. Thats much better suited for this kind of project. ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --InShaneee 16:53, 11 June 2006 (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.