Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Strategy)

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 delete. Courcelles 00:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Strategy)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod by Anon. Article is a guide. Not sure what to add; this fails so many points. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously WP's purpose is not to tell people how to play video games. The article on the game could include a external link to a respected fan site where the information is given and discussed. `Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. Feezo (Talk) 14:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT Peter.C • talk 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redo (Primary Editor) What if it was more like Chess tactics and Chess strategy? That was the ultimate goal, but it probably should have been started off differently. I think people could really benefit from knowing how to identify/implement common StarCraft II strategies.`Hogan2 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the scope of Wikipedia. Useful does not necessarily mean notable for inclusion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it basically has no content and the apparent purpose of the article is to be a game guide. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2010 (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.