Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De chateau: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Helix84 (talk | contribs)
Tmorrisey (talk | contribs)
Line 16: Line 16:
*'''Keep''' per Hahnchen. ---[[User:VladimirKorablin|Vladimir V. Korablin]] ([[User_talk:VladimirKorablin|talk]]) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Hahnchen. ---[[User:VladimirKorablin|Vladimir V. Korablin]] ([[User_talk:VladimirKorablin|talk]]) 22:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust]]. ~~[[User:helix84|helix84]] 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust]]. ~~[[User:helix84|helix84]] 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per David Bergen. Articles have already been nominated and no consensus reached last month, and they've only _improved_ since then. Wikipedia... not paper! [[User:Tmorrisey|Tmorrisey]] 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:59, 28 June 2006

Delete Non-notable game map. Prod was removed without comment Gwernol 15:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The map is just as notable as the other featured in List of Counter-Strike maps. It is an official map in both Counter-Strike 1.6 and Counter-Strike: Source. This map has an equal amount of content as the others, but could be tagged as a stub, if lack of content is your concern. I was the person who removed the prod tag after spending an hour adding content, because as the tag reads "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." As far as I know, I followed protocol to the letter of the law, and yet we're served up for AfD. Does the nominator have a specific grudge against this map, this game, or me? David Bergan 15:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. I see there was a previous nomination of all of these at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De dust which ended with no consensus. I'm not sure that it would be useful to have a second nomination, but I certainly would have voted delete, merge or redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And since that discussion, the articles have improved both individually and collectively. Are we going to go through this once every month? David Bergan 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The improvement is not the issue. Better sourced, better written, but still cruft. However, I see no reason this should not be kept if the other, identically situated articles are to be kept, and until such time as they are re-nominated, if ever, striking my vote above because it's nonsensical under the circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]