Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures

Warcraft III units and structures

Delete for consistency with StarCraft units and structures (AFD, deletion was also endorsed in Deletion Review), Age of Empires units and structures (AFD), Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures (AFD), Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry (AFD) and many many more. Punkmorten 10:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hard to argue with the solid precedent here. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I like the article (I also made recent minor changes), I agree that it should be deleted for consistency. --ToKnow 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless we are gonig to delete Rook (chess) I do not see why ones games pieces are to be deleted and another kept. Keeping with a precedent that is only based on peoples opinions and majority is hardly a reason to delete anything. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a good precedent. Why everyone keeps bringing up chess in these AfDs I'll never get, but see the above AfD discussions for responses to that comparison. -- H·G (^words/_works) 16:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy per nom. You destoryed the one from my favorite game-AOE. :P GangstaEB~(penguin logs) 17:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Split and Merge into Humans (Warcraft), Undead (Warcraft), Night Elf (Warcraft) and Orc (Warcraft)? Starcraft has the information in its race articles. Not sure about this one. --ColourBurst 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a chess player, I would be very offended if someone tried to delete the Rook (chess) article. As such, I think the Rook defense is a solid one here. Wikipedia is not paper. Themindset 18:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally very opposed, but by precedent there's not much choice any more. I also put a prod on, Chess_strategy_and_tactics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.61.46.16 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-25 18:54:04 (UTC)
Comment: please review WP:POINT. Chess strategy has had a large amount of scholarship devoted to it. Just the game theoretic aspects of Chess make it notable, as a good case can be made that the modern field of Game Theory was motivated in part by a desire to understand Chess. Until Warcraft achieves anything remotely comparable in scope, any equivalences drawn between the two games is fallacious. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That may be true - but then why is the WP:NOT policy being cited instead of the Notability guidelines? If WP:NOT is being used, then all of these articles constitute "how-to"s and are therefore not suitable for wikipedia in any form, regardless of their popularity, scholarship, or references. This is a *very* different reason than saying that they are not notable enough. All I'm saying is that WP:NOT should not be used in these cases, or there really is no way to differentiate. If the rationale for deletion is that sources cannot be found to verify the information, or if they are not notable enough for coverage, then fine, delete them. 129.61.46.16 19:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
Delete - per nom and Kaustuv. Wickethewok 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]