[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus to delete, with the strong caveat that this should NOT be pointed to as a precedent for any other such nominations. I find a couple of problems with this discussion which seem to create a situation which may or may not reflect actual consensus: (1) incivility (very severe in some cases) on the part of some "keep" voters; (2) internal spamming by David Bergan; (3) the large number of articles here and large number of corresponding proposed remedies. This AFD result should not be seen as communicating any prejudice against future nominations (even immediate future nominations) of individual articles or smaller groups of more-similar articles. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike maps

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. This article is about Counter-Strike maps, how to make them, and how to play them. It is not suitable for Wikipedia. Counter-Strike has spawned a heap of cruft, and here it all is. The following articles are also included in this AFD nomination:

Terrifyingly, there are also a heap of articles on individual maps. All these must also be deleted (closing admin, if deleted, note each has images of the maps also, which will need to be deleted as fair use will expire):

Note that there was an AFD on these maps in May (thanks to User:Gwernol for informing me). Find it here - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/De_dust. This was closed as no consensus, due to a concerted effort by the Counter-Strike article contributors to keep their nice cruft. These are how-to articles, and are NOT encyclopaedic. It does not matter if they are notable. A map of a level is game guide material. There is nothing that can be extracted from these of any encyclopaedic value. These should all be deleted too.

That is all. Proto///type 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Summarizing the position against the nominator The nom's only 2 issues are 1) Wikipedia is not a strategy guide and 2) cruft. He concedes that these pages do pass the policies of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Notability. So our discussion ought only to be limited to the first 2. Also it must be noted that by grouping all the articles in one AfD, the decision is expected to keep or delete them all, not pick out specific weak articles (ie Surfing (Counter-Strike)) and delete only those. Those advocating the keep position do not necessarily approve of all articles, but since forced with the option of keeping all or deleting all, we see at least one good article in the list we want to keep, and therefore have to keep all unless the nominator decides to relist all individually.
Regarding strategy guide, we opposed to deletion respond that these simply are not strategy guides. Take Cs italy. There is nothing in that article that explains how to play the map. In the game Counter-Strike there simply is no "right" way to play a map, there is no "walkthrough", no "how-to" beat a map because either team can do an infinite number of things to which their opponents have to adjust. What the article has is (A) a description of the map, (B) an overhead view of the map, (C) some screenshots, (D) professional criticism against the map being balanced for both sides, (E) listing of some trivia regarding the map, including the translation of an opera song that can be heard in one section. Which of those 5 counts as a "strategy guide"? If I were to describe the Roman Coliseum, wouldn't the article have the same aspects? (description, blueprint, pictures, archictectual criticism, trivia) Since the nominator concedes that these maps are notable (as the Coliseum is notable) then there is no reason to object to the format.
Regarding cruft, we opposed to deletion respond that cruft is a highly subjective term, and that since notability was conceded these articles cannot be cruft. On the first, we can be sure that one man's featured article is another man's cruft. I could just as easily consider the Roman Coliseum cruft since I am an American with no interest in classical architecture or string theory as cruft because I don't know what 12-dimension space time means, but there are even more obvious targets on wikipedia (ie Simpsons_Roasting_on_an_Open_Fire, List_of_problems_solved_by_MacGyver, etc) that stay here. Secondly, the cruft guide that the nominator linked defines it as "selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." Since the nominator already conceded notability, therefore we don't have a "small population" and therefore this isn't cruft by that definition. The guide also states that "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion." So cruft cannot even be considered as a reason for deletion... it only sometimes leads to deletion under another policy. As for "poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral", this must be judged on each article individually.
Therefore, we are opposed to deletion seeing that the nominator's only two reasons do not hold up. David Bergan 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Recently found that the nominator is on a personal crusade against "gamecruft"... makes one wonder if he's objectively evaluating the content, or just trying to score notches in his belt. Bad faith. David Bergan 22:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This stuff belongs on Wikibooks. --Tom Edwards 14:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I'm not sure, but I have a feeling Wikibooks no longer accepts game guide stuff. Proto///type 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruftacular. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. bikeable (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as gamecruft. The only one that I could possibly see having an article would be de_dust, which is far and away the most popular and well-known map for the game. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, but one day a List of Couter-Strike maps might be able to be written that is non-crufty and NPOV. Batmanand | Talk 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A non-crufty list of counter-strike maps is an oxymoron :) Proto///type 15:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though CS has a disproportionate impact on the internet community, none of these maps do. MLA 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is NOT paper. Keeping will do no harm. So Keep, just like last time. I feel sympathy for your horror, and I catch the drift of what you're saying, but you're not explicitly stating how your deletion rationale links with AFD guidelines. If you can do that, I might change my opinion. Kim Bruning 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "keeping will do no harm" argument is tempting for every AfD, but keeping non-encyclopedic information is not wikipedia's mission. WP:NOT lists a number of categories of "indiscriminate information" which wikipedia does not collect, including video game guides. bikeable (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heavily dislike people painting AFDs with broad strokes like that. It was closed as no consensus because there was no consensus. I see just as many substantive votes to keep from valid and even long-time contributors as there are for deletion. I also strongly dislike broad statements like A map of a level is game guide material. There is nothing that can be extraced from these of any /encyclopaedic/ value.. The same can be said for say, a plot summary of Hamlet. Another argument is that this is only of interest to a small group of people, well that is true. I don't think anyone just beginning to start playing CS would come here for info on the maps, and anyone that has played the maps once doesn't need our articles. Would someone that has never heard of CS use/need/want these articles? Probably not. However, the same arguments can be made for obscure mathematical and scientific articles. Have you ever heard someone say mathcruft? Thus, this argument boils down to 'I don't like it', which is obviously subjective and pointless. You could go on with well you wouldn't find this in Britannica!, but that is an idiotic argument--why should we limit ourselves to what previous encyclopedias did? Another argument made is that they are unreferenced or original research. In some cases, this is true. However, this is not really a reason for deletion. We delete things that are unverifiable, not unverified.
That all being said, these are really crufty and personally I think they have little value, but like Kim I do not see anyone presenting a valid case for deletion so I must vote keep. Kotepho 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Individual maps really don't need their own articles in a general encyclopedia. Though I would not be opposed to a list with brief summaries/screenshots of a few of the most popular maps like dust and office. Wickethewok 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep if this is an all-or-nothing deal. The de_dust series is incredibly important in the context of on-line gaming; dust and dust2 are likely the most popular on-line maps ever. (At any given moment, thousands of players are playing on one of these two maps.) Do a google search and get a million hits or 1.8 million hits. (Other official maps like cs_office are quite important and also deserve a milder keep vote as well.) For an article to be cruft, it has to appeal to only a very small audience. — brighterorange (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Picaroon9288 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Well, my apologies. Delete all per wp:not, then, as opposed to "per nom", (which happened to represent my opinions nicely.) Is my comment revalidated, or am I still so unoriginal that my opinion should be discounted? Picaroon9288 21:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/De_chateau. Kotepho has a valid point that the delete voters are hiding behind one word "cruft," which really amounts to "I don't play the game and would never read these articles." I don't watch the Simpsons, yet there is a synopsis of each episode on Wikipedia. I don't bother to learn string theory, but I found a lot of articles relating to the topic. If you're going to use the word cruft as your reasoning, you better define it much more rigidly than how it's being tossed about. I (and others) have put a considerable amount of work into most of these articles, making maps and finding content. The computer gaming center in my town uses these pages frequently when trying to gather info about the maps and select the right ones for their tournaments. That's notable enough to keep. There is no reason to delete pages that people visit frequently. Deletion policy is for screwball topics that no one will visit except the article's author. Moreover, we've already had 2 votes on this issue in as many months. There is no reason to keep bringing this up over and over until the vote goes your way... articles surviving a deletion vote should be immune from further attempts. And strike all votes that use "per nom" or "cruft" as their reasoning. Have to do better than that, since there is already a lot of cruft that is staying on Wikipedia. David Bergan 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator clearly indicated the rationale that Wikipedia is not a strategy guide, which is a specific bullet point under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This seems quite clear to me, and I'm not sure why you, Kotepho and others don't see it as a "valid" reason -- it's clearly laid out at WP:NOT. I changed my "cruft" vote (which was, for me, simply a shorthand for "indiscriminate") to reflect that more clearly, but I think the sentiment of most voters is clear enough. A games-specific wiki, not a general-use encyclopedia, is the right place for this material, just as we send the more crufty indiscriminately detailed Star Wars stuff over to Wookiepedia. bikeable (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tackled the "strategy guide" argument in my comment to the nom's vote. Short version: This doesn't constitute a strategy guide; there are no "walkthrough" or "how-to" elements. David Bergan 16:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, the fact that they are maps rather than walkthroughs makes them less valuable and encyclopedic in my opinion: that is, they do not even rise to the level of a strategy guide. As an analogy, probably a quarter-million cars use the roadway my desk overlooks, and yet detailed maps of it would not be suitable for wikipedia -- although wikipedia contains a fine general description. Detailed content like maps of CS or detailed roadway information belongs in a separate wiki, not in wikipedia. I'm sorry, I know this is a labor of love for some of you, and I would strongly encourage you to retain the info and move it elsewhere. I think it'd be good to have a comprehensive games wiki in which to keep as much detail as anyone wants. bikeable (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an interesting argument, and I'm inclined to agree. Two things, though. (1) Some of us are intimately interested in the CS map content and have been striving to make quality articles. If there were people similarly interested in the major street outside your office, who added pictures, descriptions, comments on its uniqueness, and a history of the road, that is probably bona fide wikipedia material. (2) Now David Bergan in Sioux Falls, SD isn't likely to stumble upon that street article... but you would have to agree that if you did it up right it would notable to a significant number of people (ie everyone who drives it). And if David came along on a mission to delete street-cruft, you would probably feel resentful because of the 10+ hours you put into the article just to have some hick in the Midwest insult your work by calling it cruft and try to bring it to an irretrievable delete. You knew the subject was notable when you started the article (because of the plethora of drivers), but feel upset because a group of people who don't drive that road are telling you your project sucks. And you know that the article gets a fair amount of hits because your fellow businessmen discuss it with you (as the computer gaming center in my town discuss the CS map articles with me).  ::::*Today, as is, I still have to vote to keep. As sane as your argument seems, the maps are notable (played a lot) and the content doesn't violate the WP guidelines. There still is no valid reason to delete. Kindly, David Bergan 17:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these articles were game guides I would be voting delete, but they aren't. RuneScape armour, Ragnarok_Online#Statistics, Flyff#Flying_Quest, a lot of DotA_Allstars, etc. are all stuff that should go. An article about something in a game is not always a game guide though. They only describe the map briefly and in wide terms, but also discuss things such as the history of the maps and their creators, which seems to be sourced with links that are not too objectionable (caveat, I only looked at a few of the articles). Kotepho 22:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. We can and should write about important games and their important components, and we can (and already do, in many cases) say interesting things without being a strategy guide. — brighterorange (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep summary article Counter-Strike maps, which seems to be a reasonable, factual, verifiable article on a very popular and notable topic. I have no vote on the subject of the individual maps; they are OR-ish in their current state, but thousands of people play on them so I believe they do have notability. TomTheHand 21:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tens of thousands are playing them right now while 5 or 6 are here on Wikipedia trying to tell non-players how many do visit these pages.
  • Keep per reasoning of David Bergan. I'd like to see pictures of the missing maps, too. John Bergan 21:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has less than 20 edits; half to this AFD, and almost all others to David Bergan's user page and subpages. No insinuations of any kind. Proto::type 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's my smarter younger brother. I can give you his phone number if you want to call and verify that he's not a sockpuppet. Kindly, David Bergan 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm betting he's a meatpuppet. John Bergan 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all per nom, because WP is not a gaming guide, because blanketing everyone who expresses opinions against this as a person with a vendetta is specious, because saying to keep because you like it is just as invalid as saying delete because you dislike it, because saying "all or nothing" and then citing a prior AfD is about as good an idea as citing a prior AfD and saying "we've been through this before so keep because it survived last time," (although in this case I guess "nothing" is acceptable to me), and because attempting to compare these maps to mathematicians or other articles of that nature doesn't actually work, as mathematicians and the like made documented, lasting contribution that somehow furthered society at large. While CS has obviously had its own cultural impact, I welcome anyone to show me how individual maps can claim the same. GassyGuy 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is an article about every episode of Season 5 of 24. Yet we are debating to delete pages that explain _the most played_ maps in computer FPS's. These maps are ones that ALL serious gamers know about/heard of. There is massive ammounts of culture, references, and history behind these maps. They make up the heart of CounterStrike, the most popular first person shooter out there. And you guys want to delete that, yet making a page for _every_ episode of 24 and Simpsons is okay? Just think about what you guys are talking about, this is a ridicoulous arguement, you might as well delete about a 3rd of Wikipedia if you delete these. You have to understand, de_dust is the most recognized computer map of all time. Any serious gamer who sees it can easily say "Counter-Strike". When they reach this kind of popularity, it _IS_ worth keeping. There are articles on wikipedia that are a lot worse and need a lot more attention than this. In no way should these be merged or deleted, it would violate the goal of wikipedia in many ways, because these maps truly do mark a serious spot in computer gaming. --Rake 21:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - episodes of 24 have plot, story, actors who appeared, and so on. A MAP of a level has no plot, no mythology, no backstory, nothing. It's just a map. Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep To the point about the maps above, like I said, each of these maps have their own history, because they were all developed under different circumstances, are are in no way similar (well, save the Dust series). Each one can easily spark a conversation between two gamers (Who has the best advantage, best rushing route, good camping spots, good sniping spots, etc.) No, we are not making a game guide, we are simply explaining the maps that make Counter-Strike, well, counter-strike. You can't just group all of these maps together. While they are all for counterstrike, a battle fought on Dust is extremely different and has a completely different story behind it than a battle fought on Aztec, for example. Individual maps definately DO have their own cultural impact, ask any serious gamer about dust or aztek. Everyone who here is saying that this is becoming a game guide I guess is not a CounterStrike gamer, because if they were, they would know that each of these maps adds their own bit of tactics, ideas, and culture to Counter Strike. --Rake 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Since I assume this is a response to me, given the use of the phrase "cultural impact," could you please supply me with a source that details an impact of an individual map had as opposed to the game as a whole? Barring that, I am strengthening my opinion on the basis that almost all of these keep votes are saying "cruft isn't a valid argument" and giving impassioned "I play this game and I love this map, therefore keep it" speeches without addressing any of the other points, e.g., why an individual map is at all important in its own right. I'm sorry, but the fact that it's of interest to a group of gamers means it belongs in a game encyclopaedia, not a general one. Show me why it is of importance to the general population. GassyGuy 04:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per David Bergan. o/s/p 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikibooks. Looks like good content in the wrong place. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Note: though I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a transwiki or merge, I'm not voting that way so as to reduce the chance of this being closed as no consensus.) If we were writing a Counter-Strike strategy guide, this would be vital info. Since we're writing an encyclopedia, though, this is simply unnecessary. Most (all?) video games don't need an article about each individual level, stage, map, or mission. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per the original AFD. I made my comments clear there, but will reiterate my arguments here. Counter-Strike is the most popular online FPS ever, and is the number one team FPS game at professional esports tournaments (and has been for some time). I do not endorse the keeping of every single FPS map, but I think that official counter-strike maps are definitely notable, my comment at the previous vote noted that the current server and player counts for each specific map runs into the thousands at every single second of the day. Another comment I'd like to restate is that these maps are not static unlike say the maps in Quake 3. Counter-Strike has had a constant changing map roster as part of its iterative development cycle. Maps are retired due to balance/quality/popularity issues, if you want to follow the development history of counter-strike, then looking at the map articles definitely helps and this is what makes them encyclopedic. If you want to find out the history behind Counter-strike, then you're going to have to study the map list. And another point on its popularity, there are many more people out there who would want to read an article on a counter-strike map than say some computer game based webcomic like Concerned, or an esports team like Team 3D and yet I think those who are interested in Team 3D would find articles on the arenas in which their victories took place interesting. - Hahnchen 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - millions more people have played Super Mario World. Do we have an article on each level of that game? No, and nor should we. Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      But, of course, "Notability is not the issue here." John Bergan 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - There's some differences to maps in Super Mario World. Some which I have picked up on in my original comment. Super Mario maps are fixed, they've not changed since the first game was boxed. Counter-Strike maps haven't, they've evolved with the game, tried new things out and are part of Counter-Strike's developmental history. I think this is something to note down due to Counter-Strike's long history, if you check out the Counter-Strike article, you'll see a release timetable chronicling the game's various releases and big changes made. It however, hasn't managed to note down the changing map cycles in the game, nor how the maps themseleves have changed as this is quite hard to research. The other point I made was about professional gaming. Recently, Complexity Gaming recently won the Summer CPL competition, and that news is covered by Gotfrag here. I think whoever is looking into competitive gaming will want to find out about the maps in which these tournaments took place, in this case de inferno and de dust2. Ask a Super Mario fan what map 4-3 is and he might not be able to tell you. Ask a none-counter-strike playing FPS fan what de_dust is, and he will know it. - Hahnchen 14:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We may not have articles on Mario maps but we have a bewildering array of stuff at List of Mario series characters. The characters may be seen as the most important component of the Mario games while the maps are seen as the most important component of Counter-Strike. In any case we have a large collection of articles whose only sources are video games, video game guides and fansites. Haukur 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Massive übercruft. If it's so popular the fans can start their own Wiki. ~ trialsanderrors 23:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per above. Naconkantari 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been amply demonstrated that these articles are not mere strategy guides to playing the levels, they contain information on the maps creators, histories, why they are notable in the development of multiplayer gaming, etc. That discounts the "Wikipedia is not a video game strategy guide" argument towards deletion. The number of people playing these maps and a simple Google search proves that these are DEFINITELY notable. And "But it's cruuuuuufty" is not a valid reason to delete. There's a lot of esoteric information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," not, "the free encyclopedia that only people who are interested in everyday, common mainstream pablum can edit"

If you don't feel that there's enough non-strategy information in the articles... find some sources and add some more information. If you have the time to nominate as an AfD and post about how this is all fancruft and ruining Wikipedia, you have time to do the research. If you don't care enough about the articles to try and improve them, I feel that you don't have the right to delete them, either. It is always easier to destroy than to create. Your choice. Tmorrisey 00:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, "notability is not the issue here" -- Proto. Strike this vote from the record. John Bergan 06:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm not seeing the context that Tmorrisey sees; there's just a bunch of game-guide content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. (edit conflict) As someone who has spent hundreds of hours in those maps, I can tell you firsthand that they do not merit inclusion into Wikipedia. They are just cruft. Alphachimp talk 00:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Wikibooks can only take game guides that are college textbooks. Please specify, with a reliable source, exactly which of these is a college textbook for what course, where... GRBerry 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and transwiki Hasn't this been to AfD before? Whispering 02:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep cruft is described as being of interest only to a small fanbase but as can be seen from checking the steam status page, there are 115,600 people playing CounterStrike and CounterStrike Source this very second and that figure is only a fraction of the total number of players (due to different timezones and each player only playing for a few hours) which is probably in the region of 1.2 million. so the cruft argument is null. CounterStrike is a cultural computer online phenomena and as such deserves to be noted in Wikipedia along with descriptions of the maps that it is played on. calling these map descriptions game guides is misguided and wrong. yes there will be information that may appear to be like a guide but it is just part of the description of the map not a walkthrough of "how to complete this level" as that would be impossible to do for a game like CounterStrike. a guide for CounterStrike would basically read "don't get shot, shoot all the enemy". IMHO it would be tragic for an encyclopedia with the scope of Wikipedia to delete the entries for such a ground breaking and immensely popular online phenomena as CounterStrike based on the "per nom" votes of people who have no insite into it. some of these maps are so popular that they have even been converted to be used in other online games (de_dust and aztec, among others, have both been converted to be used in Day of Defeat) and this must surely be a sign that CounterStrike maps are worthy of recognition. thankyou for your time --81.79.138.151 02:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)prone ranger[reply]
  • Relist, individually, and remind the nominator that this didn't work last time and isn't going to work now, less than a month later. Nifboy 02:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    De dust was nominated on 19 May. This AFD was opened on 10 July. That is not less than a month. It is, however, just less than 2 months. Proto::type 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a straw man. Though the link is to the AfD of de_dust, "last time" really means the de_chateau AfD, which was, as Nifboy said, less than a month ago. Somethin' like June 29. That's like two WEEKS ago! Give it up! All this work and we'll probably have to start over with a new discussion at the beginning of August, just so Proto can try to get more red links on his talk page or whatever it is. Doesn't the Constitution prevent people from being tried twice for the same crime? And Counter-Strike maps are being tried three times in two months! They're innocent already! The jury said so. Twice. This is outrageous. Seriously, deleters, quit wasting everyone's time, stopping our fun, and censoring worthwhile information. John Bergan 06:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:NOT is policy, consensus, whether current or in prior AFDs can not override policy. Recent discussion, on the mailing list if I recall correctly, has also established that game guides are not suitable content for Wikibooks unless they are actually used as college textbooks. My impression of the main articles was that they also contained unhealthy dose of violation of WP:V by vailing to cite reliable sources. If such sources exist, it might be possible to write a decent article on Counter-Strike map types, but anyone doing so needs to be careful to abide by WP:FORGET and start by forgetting everything they know from playing the game. GRBerry 03:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hahnchen and David Bergan. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some interesting issues here regarding notability and verifiability. Is it reasonable to use a computer game as a source about the computer game itself? Or is that original research? Does a computer game qualify as a published source? I'm not really sure. I often write articles about books and then I tend to devote a large section to summarizing the contents of the book. Is summarizing the content of a book original research? Hardly. Should summarizing the content of a computer game be treated differently? Hmm, well, a computer game is in some ways less accessible than a book. For one thing you need to have a certain type of computer in order to play. But on the other hand we accept any book as a source no matter how inaccessible it is. In Gosforth cross I used a relatively obscure 1913 book written in Icelandic as a source. No-one seems to have a problem with that, but it is undoubtedly less accessible to the general Wikipedia user than Counter-Strike is.
  • As for notability I'm sure there are many more people interested in Counter-Strike maps than in Acta sanctorum in Selio which I wrote a few days ago. Before I wrote that article its title had exactly one English language Google hit. No-one ever wants to delete my articles on medieval literature, no matter how "crufty" they get. The Google comparison isn't entirely fair, though, because "Acta sanctorum in Selio" gets two English language Google Books hits (both of them good reliable sources) where "Counter-Strike maps" get none.
  • Is there precedent for using computer games as a source? I think there is. If you look at the Bulbasaur featured article you'll come upon sentences like this: "In the next game, Pokémon Yellow, Bulbasaur, Charmander and Squirtle are not available at the beginning, as all three have already been taken by other trainers; instead, the player starts with a Pikachu. A Bulbasaur becomes available later in the game, as a gift from an non-player character in Cerulean City..." My guess would be that this information comes simply from the game itself - which is, indeed, cited as a source in the references section.
  • Taking all the above into consideration and assuming—perhaps generously—that Mark made the right call in promoting Bulbasaur, I think a decent case can be made for the notability and verifiability of Counter-Strike maps. Haukur 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing I didn't think of when I wrote this is that it's much harder to give a citation to a specific part of a computer game than to that of a book or even a film. You can cite the page numbers of a book, the time period of a film (in the specific DVD version of it your citing) but you can't really cite information such as specific factoids about a map in Counter-Strike in an elegant way. You'll have to say something like: "Load the map and start the game, if you start in the typical counter-terrorist spawning location then go forward for about 20 seconds, then turn left, jump over the boxes, go inside the window, go down the stairs and out again, through the street and turn right. There you can observe the facts which this citation refers to." This does make citing computer games more difficult in an important way than citing even very obscure books. The fact remains that there are articles out there—even featured articles—which do cite computer games. But since stare decisis doesn't apply to Wikipedia we're free to reach another conclusion here than the one reached at Bulbasaur. We could even try to tighten up WP:NOR to discourage citation of computer games. Haukur 08:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is a side-issue. Failing WP:NOT is the chief problem with these articles). I don't see anyone as having addressed this, instead there's a lot of arm-waving about how lots of people play them. Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder if the places of Morrowind sequence of articles can be seen as precedent for keeping these articles too. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - not the same thing, as a location has fictional history, plot, backstory, characters, etc. A map for a FPS shoot em up does not. Proto///type 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I beg to differ. FPS maps have both fictional and real histories, nearly always have a plot and backstory (the CS maps certainly do), and surely have characters (or, more precisely, roles). They are also irrelevant to my point, which is that game "maps" having articles of their own is precedented. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 13:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I beg to rediffer. The Morrowind places are RPG locations, not FPS maps, not maps. There is a difference. Personally, I would delete them, too, but that's not the issue. They are different. The same difference exists in the movies. We don't have an article on the factory where they all shot one other in Reservoir Dogs, but we do have one on Mordor. One has backstory, mythology, plot. The other is just a location where something took place. Proto///type 13:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad Faith Nom and Strong Keep The articles are not written as streategy guides but more of descriptions of locations in a very popular game series. Surfing is not so much a how-to as it is a explanation of a technique. Surfing can be compared to an article about the act of fishing; they're not how-tos but explanations. Sure they can be cruft-prone, but as can a lot of articles. ANd i highly refute the argument that RPG locations are any more or less notable than FPS Maps. IN a generic sense they're same thing; virtual spaces for a video game. Just because rpg's tend to have more backstory doesnt mean an FPS map is any less notable. CS maps are pretty notable as they are really not that many popular ones. They're just a few that everyone plays over and over gaain. And given the large user base i'd say that makes them pretty encyclopedic. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep David Bergan hit the nail on the head above, but I'll reiterate.
Come on, we've already had two AfD nominations... this is getting ridiculous. Let us examine the nomination:
1. It is stated as cruft. This one is simple enough: "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." (From WP:Cruft)
2. The nomination also contains flat-out lies. There are no "how-to" elements of these articles. These articles are not game guides, nor do they read anything like them. I am adamantly opposed to having strategies and the like in Wikipedia, and I actively remove anything that could be considered strategy guide material.
The nominator (who is an admin) has had at least one other person complain about him nominating pages as "game guides" without merit User_talk:Proto#Complaint, and acts in quite an uncivil manner, with his insults to others' work (referring to some of these articles as "bastard children" and "terrifying," and statements like "a concerted effort by the Counter-Strike article contributors to keep their nice cruft."
This is utter stupidity; we shoudln't have to go through this every month. If you're not happy with how Wikipedia works, go somewhere else. --Varco 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Varco and others - Proto has been extremely civil in my opinion (everyone has actually considering the feelings on both sides), especially considering the aggressiveness of the opposition. Rather than insulting editors, it is usually best to simply make your arguments about the articles, rather than about editors of different opinions. Proto (and all of the other editors here of course) are voicing what they believe to best for Wikipedia, so enough with this "bad faith nom" stuff. Wickethewok 03:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my tone comes across as aggressive. But you have to understand that as a contributor to these articles, it is extremely frustrating to have to go through the AfD process every other week. As for ad hominem, just calling a spade a spade. You can find proto's personal crusade on his own user page, and that is precisely the thing that clouds one's objectivity. He probably didn't even read all of the articles he put up for AfD here. David Bergan 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. I had to wade through them all while tagging them for deletion. Your continual rudeness and accusations of bad faith are extremely unhelpful. Proto::type 11:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wading through them" in order to slap a tag on the top of them does not constitute reading them. --Varco 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't even see how you could start to claim he's being civil. I did make my arguments about the articles, but they seem to go ignored becuase I called Proto on his belittlement of our work. --Varco 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - Would those who voted in this AFD be OK with a compromise such as a single article with the most notable/popular maps listed? To me at least, this seems like a possible solution, as long as the article is well-written and sourced with secondary, reliable sources. If this clutters up the AFD page too much, feel free to move it to the talk page. Wickethewok 03:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, for the simple reason that that one page would be way too huge. It would be like trying to compress all the paintings of the Louvre into one article. You just don't do it because you should have a pic of each one. David Bergan 04:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, I don't think this is the Lourve exactly. And you certainly don't need all these details and pictures for every single map as we have it now. Well, it seems there most likely won't be a compromise then due to this quick opposition to a possible solution.... Wickethewok 05:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So are a bunch of game guide articles about maps on a game as important as The Louvre, or the Colosseum? As you have asserted boith of these facts. Proto::type 11:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You, Proto, conceded notability. That doesn't mean that cs_office is as important to the history of the world as The Last Supper, but in the eyes of Wikipedia they are both article-worthy. I use analogies like the coliseum and the louvre because just about everyone knows about them and they can grasp the analogy immediately. My point wasn't "if these maps go, then so does every piece of art." My point was only that there is a reason why we should use separate articles, because there would be too much content if we filled up one page. David Bergan 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I 'concede notability' again? Let me be perfectly clear: Notability is not the issue here, but that does not mean I believe these maps are notable. Proto::type 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "I concede notability" synonymous with "notability is not the issue here"? If so, the answer to your question is the sentence it precedes. Regardless, notability is not the issue here. Game-guidity is, which brings me to my point: if I wanted to make a game guide, how would I gather the necessary information? I would look to an encyclopedia to garner this research. A COMPLETE encyclopedia, I should say. And that, I believe, is what Wikipedia strives to be. We needn't fill Wikipedia with every imaginable bit of information in the universe, but we should be able to recognize that these map articles are encyclopedic, not game-guidic. They are game guide enablers, not game guides themselves. John Bergan 05:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I guess cs_office compares to the Mona Lisa then? Heheh I like that argument - "don't delete because counter strike maps are almost the same as the Venus de Milo and Winged Victory of Samothrace". Wickethewok 12:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I commented before on a previous AFD why a merge would not be suitable as well as some comments made at Talk:Counter-Strike maps. The reason why a list of Counter-Strike maps would not work in the same way as Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved works is because of Counter-Strike's history. Halo comes out with a map, and it's static, unchanged from the first version. Counter-Strike is different, it's incremental delivery means that the maps have all evolved over time, their developmental history is important. For example, I know that de inferno would not have become one of the most balanced tournament maps had a new corridor been introduced in parallel to the main street. (I can't source this right now, which is why I haven't added it to the article). I also know it has gone through various rebuilds and retextures. 3 different versions have been released and are played simultaneously online, one for Counter-Strike, Counter-Strike: Condition Zero and Counter-Strike: Source. To cover all this would lead to an amalgamated article being incredibly incredibly long and hard to navigate or keep track of. To cop that off, Counter-Strike has had many more maps in its map cycle than both Halo and List of maps in Battlefield 2 - Hahnchen 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hahnchen, are you saying the fact that an unstable map used in a computer game had an extra corridor added is not gamecruft? Proto::type 16:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you'd probably consider the entire Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved gamecruft as it tells you of the features found in a map. The corridor addition might sound cruft, but the addition of an extra route is why it's used in professional competitions. If you want to follow the development history of Counter-Strike, you have to look at the development of the maps. These maps are being played simultaneously across 3 different games, the changes in between these versions are worth noting down. - Hahnchen 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, for one, am glad that David let me know that there was an AfD debate. I was on vacation, and I would not have noticed unless I found the message notification on the top of an article I was reading. Again, Proto, here you are being uncivil by not notifying significant contributors to the articles you are trying to delete, and then having the audacity to accuse David Bergan of spamming for doing something that you yourself were supposed to do. "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." (Source: WP:AfD) --Varco 20:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I found the discussion and argued for keep before he left a message on my talk page. Let's let the arguments speak for themselves. — brighterorange (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all individual maps, but Keep main article, as per Kitch ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of Counter-Strike maps and its redirect, merging and redirecting from the articles on particular maps, and from Custom Counter-Strike maps, as most of the map articles appear to take a very similar form, and the two map lists are somewhat redundant. Keep the article on "surfing"; it's certainly odd, but appears to be a recognized phenomenon. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To ChipperGuy - Note that while Proto and other edits don't have issues with notability, others do. Just because Proto says that notability is not an issue for him, doesn't mean that everyone who thinks that the maps are not notable should have their opinions discounted. Also, please consider placing your comments at the end of a discussion, rather than addressing them on a point-by-point basis throughout the article. It makes it easier for editors to read and helps provide an understanding of the flow of discussion without having to check timestamps for everything. Just my couple o' cents. Wickethewok 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to clarify, the fact I didn't mention notability in the AFD nomination does not mean that I consider the maps to be particularly notable. Proto::type 10:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be irregular to accuse a man of one crime, and then when he gets to court, the jury decides to make up another crime for him and send him to jail on that. The original nomination summary never mentioned notability, the nominator himself said it's not the issue, and when pressed for a third and final time (on the talk page) he again said that the only issue was the WP:NOT violation on grounds of it being a game-guide.
But even IF notability is an issue for voters, it can be debunked simply by a google search or a reckoning of the players on the Counter-Strike servers that host the maps. It's like the street analogy bikeable brought up. Millions driving the street assures us that the information is relevant to the lives of millions of people. So if someone were to make an article detailing the street's history and uniqueness decorate it with a top-down map and a few pics of what it looks like, it is obviously notable. Same here, except we have players instead of drivers. Kindly, David Bergan 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wickethewok. I'll try to make most of my posts at the bottom from now on. And I agree that whether a person believes that the map pages are notable is not a reason to discount his or her vote. However, if poor notability is the ONLY accompanying reason for a vote, then it should be counted the same as a vote with no reasoning given. "Delete, these maps are not notable" should be treated the same way as "Delete, I hate fun" or "Delete." Why? Because Proto has argued that "notability is not the issue here." John Bergan 16:25, 14 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Counter-Strike_maps&oldid=1124008169"