Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Counter-Strike maps

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 all.

The questions here are still complex, but there seems to be a strong consensus for one thing: the bulk of the information in these articles constitutes a "game guide", which Wikipedia explicitly is not. A smaller article listing the maps with a brief description would be allowable under the consensus I'm seeing below; individual articles about each level would not be, even in the case of maps which may be more notable than others.

I read "transwiki" as including both the statements: (1) "these articles don't belong here" and (2) "these articles might be useful to this other wiki". Thus, in my view, the discussion below indicates that there is a strong consensus that the information doesn't belong here. I am definitely willing to temporarily undelete in order to help someone perform the transwiki. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Counter-Strike maps

This discussion is about whether or not the individual counter-strike maps, as a class, should be wholly deleted. The individual merits or demerits of any single map is not relevant (that would require its own individual AfD). We are talking about the principle of having individual counter-strike maps... whether that principle is in violation of the WP:NOT policy, and whether any individual counter-strike map could be considered notable.

These articles are being considered for deletion because of the following policy:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.


Additionally there are two supporting reasons, but not actual wikipedia policy by themselves (as stated clearly on their respectable pages):


Many of these articles also had a discussion in the following AfDs:


Please keep in mind that referring to debates that resulted in "no consensus" is not a sufficient reason for counting either a keep or delete vote. Neither does it count to refer to essays that are not actual policy (like WP:NN or WP:CRUFT). And in this peculiar instance, the nominator is actually opposed to deletion, so "per nom" votes would be ambiguous and also not countable. (You can find my reasoning next to my vote below.)

As nominator, I will be informing all users from the 3 aforementioned AfDs who participated with more than 2 edits, as they will likely be interested in this discussion.

Closing admin, if the result is to delete, take note that many of the articles have screenshots and images of the maps. Fair use may expire on these images. David Bergan 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep as nominator. I am one of the main contributors to the articles in question and the reason I am putting up this AfD is because we have been bombarded by AfD requests that have all resulted in "no consensus". But each of those discussions didn't directly face what I consider to be the main issue: whether or not the principle of individual CS maps is in violation of the policy. Other things were grouped in (like surfing) which muddled the main issue. And as the closing admin stated in the latest AfD, a vote of "no consensus" doesn't mean anything. I feel we need a consensus before I continue working on these articles, because either (A) a delete will be delete them and then I can't work on them or (B) a keep will make them immune from the threat of a future AfD. Since the discussion is still fresh in many people's minds, we should try to settle this once and for all.
So much for my reasons for nominating. Now for my reasons for keeping.
Regarding the "instruction manuals" violation, I maintain simply that these articles do not constitute an instruction manual. Take Cs italy as an example. There is nothing in that article that explains how to play the map. In fact in the game Counter-Strike there never is any one "right" way to play a map. The game is exclusively multiplayer, and because either team can do an infinite number of things to which their opponents have to adjust, there is no possible "walkthrough", or "how-to" beat a map. What the article has is (A) a description/history 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. None of those five constitute an instruction manual for anything. They are a simple description, much like what we find in the article about the Roman Colosseum... (A) description/history (B) blueprint (C) pictures (D) architectual criticism (E) trivia. The latter article is not an instruction manual, and neither is the former.
Regarding "not notable," I maintain that the article's notability can be plainly ascertained from a count of users daily playing on public servers (something like over 1 million), or the hits from a Google search (de_dust = over 1 million). In the last AfD an argument was presented that this sort of counting doesn't automatically justify an article as notable. He has an office by a street that probably sees more than a million cars a day, but that doesn't make an article on the street notable. My response is that yes an article about that street would be notable... if he put together something like the 5 sections I included in the last paragraph. If he merely described the road, then it might have AfD issues (although I haven't read any policy or guideline that would immediately sink it). But if in addition he researched the local newspaper archives and dug up a history of the road, described the points of its uniqueness, and uploaded a couple pics and map of its location, it would clearly be notable. "Not notable" violations are things like "shirts in David Bergan's closet"... not things that a large part of the public encounters.
Regarding "cruft," I have 2 arguments. First, that cruft is a highly subjective term. Any specialist understands that things related to his specialty are more important to him than the average person. It doesn't matter if your specialty is fishing or quantum physics, there are a certain realm of topics that will be very interesting to you, that wouldn't be interesting to my mom. To accuse another's specialty topic as being mere cruft, shows little more than the obvious fact that you don't have an appreciation for that specialty. Counter-strike, being a world-wide professional sport now, has its realm of specialty, just as baseball or football. My second objection comes from a plain reading of the cruft page. That page defines cruft as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans," which in the interest of these maps is simply untrue. So many people play these maps that it is impossible to consider it a "small population."
And finally for those considering a merge vote, I respond that there is simply too much content for one article to cover it all. Discussing the uniqueness, history, and trivia of 22 maps (and hopefully screenshots, and overhead maps) would make a convoluted mess. I hope I have persuaded you to keep. Kindly, David Bergan 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're voting on the concept of "individual counter-strike maps, as a class." Sure some of the articles may be riddled with original research, but I don't see how the concept itself can be considered original reseach. Thus, an original research argument could work for an AfD of a specific article or two (or even, hypothetically, for every single one of these maps), but we would have to consider each article separately to do that. It just doesn't seem possible that the class itself could be considered original research. But maybe I'm missing something. Kindly, David Bergan 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research Dr Zak 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per nom. In the previous AfD I said to transwiki them to Wikibooks, but I'm led to believe that Wikibooks will not accept this sort of article. They should then remain in WP. I would recommend an individual article for the major maps such as the dust maps, and a general article for less well known maps, but as far as notability goes I have a hard time believing that these are not notable or that they are game guides. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How many of these discussions do we have to have. The Keep has won for 4 or 5 consecutive times already, drop the arguement, I've presented all my points in the previous dicussions. --Rake 19:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a single article or list. While Counterstrike itself is quite notable, in all honesty, how much of that article information isn't just gameplay guide and padding? They are utterly non-notable individually, only as a group can they merit inclusion. --tjstrf 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all of them. I think David Bergan has made rational and reasonable arguments to keep the articles. Claims of original search, while inviting debate, are not valid. No new idea or assertion is being made by these articles, and it is common practice in video game articles (also articles for films, books, TV shows, etc.) to draw directly from the media to write the article. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between taking text or speech directly from a source (such as a novel or TV interview) and the issues discussed here. Conducting original research in real life (like weighing a cubic centimeter of an element or writing about what you see from the top of the Eiffel Tower) is equivalent to original observations and original research in fictional universes ("A Terrorist can easily sit near the hostages.", "The snow provides a lot of resistance to the player's movement"). Wickethewok 19:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper. To be cruft, it must appeal only to a "small population", which is not the case here. — brighterorange (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd also like to note that user:Dbergan seems to be attempting to swing, or at least influence, this vote by contacting "everyone who had more than 2 edits"[1] in these discussions. Which is not exactly normal procedure in AfD's, and frowned upon. --tjstrf 20:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has done this in good faith and has contacted people on both sides of the argument. While not the usual, I don't think he was trying to swing votes imo. Wickethewok 20:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did this in accordance with the WP:AFD page. "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article." My method of discerning "main contributors" was just to take anyone with 3 or more edits in the previous AfDs... since those people are the most likely to have the strongest feelings on the subject. Also, that method included users from both sides of the debate, so I couldn't be accused of vote stacking. David Bergan 21:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Bergan is doing this because in the most recent AfD debate for these maps, he notified the significant contributors, and was accused of vote stacking. It should be noted that significant contributors will naturally support the keeping of these articles, since it is their own work. --Varco 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place to go into the last detail of every game. with hundrets of articles per game. At best merge them all into the original article for the game. I see wikipedia as a place for a user that asks himself, 'what the hell is "counterstrike"?' looks it up, and feels satisfied for the knowledge. It isn't for users who ask themself "now playing on map 7, whats the best tactic after house 4, should I pick up weapon 3 or 4?", etc. Jestix 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, come on. If you'd read the articles, which you should if you're commenting in here, there isn't ANY advice on how to play the game in them. Period. There isn't anything about "the best tactic", or "should I pick up weapon 3 or 4". It simply doesn't exist. Whether or not the articles get deleted, I find it offensive that you would comment with a STRONG DELETE, in all bold, without having even glanced at the material in question. Will 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the whole deletion discussion, which you should if you're commenting in here, you'd see that I already after discussion flipped over to merge and transwiki. By the way, at the time I wrote this document there was strategic content in some articles, just look for example in the history of cs_italy! Also Wikipedia is not democracy (to lazy to seek that link out right now), its not the number of votes that count, so you do not need to "fight" about every vote, and you do not need to feel offended. --17:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, and there is still enough stuff that at least very close to be guide-like, e.g.

A common Counter-Terrorist strategy is to rescue two hostages and kill the last one for an immediate win (which works because a majority of the hostages, not all of them, triggers a win). This strategy works very well in Estate. or From the upper level Terrorist spawn point, a Terrorist can snipe at Counter-Terrorists entering through the front or back entrances. .. and so --Jestix 17:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to a list. Barring that, I would support keeping only some. Such as dust. There's no way it is not notable - but some of the others surely are. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As per Jestix, Wikipedia is not a gameguide. A list of the maps on the main CS article is ok, but the maps do NOT need individual pages.--Bschott 21:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all, possibly transwiki to Counter-Strike wiki on Wikia if they don't have it already. I can live with a list of counter-strike maps, but WP:NOT a game guide and the maps don't need individual pages here. BryanG(talk) 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; The policy is "while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction." These are plainly descriptions of levels, and NOT instruction on how to play them. People keep seeing "game guide" and reading it as "if it has to do with a game, it doesn't belong here!" That is not what the policy says. If you read the context of the policy, you see that it refers to a guide to how to play a game, which these are not. TomTheHand 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has not an description for every people, place and thing. No I don't think that every level should be descriped in wikipedia. What comes next, an article for every level of prince of persia? An article about every map from [netrek], xpilot, nethack, not to mention articles for every place you find in games like Ultima Online and so on? -Jestix 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The maps them selves by their very nature are useful in assisting sucessful gameplay. That is the reason why people are interested in looking at them. That makes them a game guide with or without descriptive text.--Nick Y. 21:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this. I enjoyed reading about the history of the de_dust series and don't think that page assists gameplay at all. More importantly though, a useful reference should not be confused with a how-to (which is what a game guide is and what Wikipedia is not). For example, I frequently use Wikipedia as a reference while programming (e.g. recently DES and cyclic redundancy check), but that doesn't make those articles how-to articles. — brighterorange (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A lot of these articles seem to be good candidates to merge somewhere, but I don't know the topic well enough to suggest exactly where. JYolkowski // talk 22:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list and move detail Transwiki - Merge the most important content into a list and also transwiki-move the full articles to Counter-Strike wiki. - Johntex\talk 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that the nominator is mistaken with respect to a "Keep" decision solving this once and for all. Nothing is permenant and keep decisions can be revisited, just as delete decisions can be. Johntex\talk 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, game guide/cruft. Recury 22:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list and move detail Transwiki, per Johntex, or just Delete if that's too complicated. In addition to being inappropriate subject matter, the articles contain extensive original research, especially in the "Analysis" sections. -Will Beback 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominating these for deletion is clearly not a productive excercise. While I am opposed to the existance of these as individual articles, I beleive that they are useful redirects. Instead of participating here, I'd strongly urge people to contribute to the editorial process instead. Rather than mess around here, I am going to begin removing all biased and/or unsourced material from the maps. Then I am going to begin merging that material into Counter-Strike maps. Please do join me in doing so. - brenneman {L} 22:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Counter-Strike, Counter-Strike maps, Custom Counter-Strike maps, etc. and delete—skirts OR; too derivative. Though I agree that there is too much information here for a complete merge, the information can and should be drastically cut down with all trivia removed. If this vote ends in no consensus, and given that this afd is specifically tailored to end the debate, I would think WP:POINT, and vote speedy keep in any future afd unless there were extenuating circumstances.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone has done a lot of work, but it does not belong here. This stuff is all effemeral parts of the game that may disappear with the next software update. That CS wiki sounds the proper place for it.--Michael Johnson 23:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a list and transwiki as per Johntex. A list would cover the WP search results for "de_dust" et al and can direct those to Counter-Strike or the CS wiki. WP:NOT wins, as it would if level 1.2 from Super Mario Bros. had an article. -- Scientizzle 23:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awww, and nobody wanted to contact me about this? I guess I'll have to invite myself. Delete again. Fine if some of the information goes into Counter-Strike maps or another major article but, again, just because C-S is notable doesn't make every aspect of C-S worthy of its own article. Oh, and as others have mentioned, put them in the counter-strike wiki. GassyGuy 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I cannot be bothered to argue this again. I made 3 fairly hefty contributions to the previous debates, explaining why some of these were notable and encyclopedic, and why comments like "same as Super Mario level 5-2" are incorrect and do not apply to this situation. I cannot be bothered to again. I was considering actually improving the de_dust article using information from the map author's website, but I'm not going to do work on these if they're going to crop up for deletion every bloody week. I seriously suggest participants actually read through the previous nominations and see the comments posed there, I may just copy-paste some over. Right now, the articles aren't in a great state, but AFDing them all the time really isn't going to help. - Hahnchen 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete maybe a list with a brief description, but not this.... --Pboyd04 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, completely unencyclopedic, google test in this case is completly misleading and does not prove any measure of notability. Mabye the counter strike people should start a wiki for this cruft.--Peta 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or Merge. No reason for individual maps in a game to each have their own article. TJ Spyke 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Counter-Strike wiki. Delete if this is not a valid option (license incompatibility). These violate WP:NOT and as they mostly aren't written using reliable sources they also need to go as WP:OR. GRBerry 02:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The articles are notable, that has been established enough. Cruft is a moot point; List of Super Bowl champions is rather important, but it's "cruft" to me, because I don't care about American Football all too much. The articles are by no means game guides. As David Bergan said, there is nothing in there that could be considered game guide material. As I stated in the previous debate, "I am adamantly opposed to having strategies and the like in Wikipedia, and I actively remove anything that could be considered strategy guide material [from these articles]." As far as original research policy, in the first debate I stated, quoting WP:OR "'An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments.' These articles propose no ideas or arguments." In opposition to merging, I said: "Counter-Strike maps is already a very long article. While I recognize that some parts of it could be removed, even if they were, the article would be extremely long after all of these map articles (and more, as they're still being written) were merged into it." Since then, Counter-Strike maps has been split into itself and Custom Counter-Strike maps due to its length. Merging is not a good idea, in my opinion; whatever article it was merged into would be too long. --Varco 04:09, 18 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. 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. Considering the Google results for these maps, and that there is history about these maps that will be deleted if we merge them, I strongy oppose any deletion. --Rake 05:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You already "voted" or whatever we're calling it above - I slashed it so as not to confused closing admin or other users. Wickethewok 05:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - mention the notable ones in Counter-Strike maps or something, but these individual entries are too much detail for an encyclopedia. Transwiki if there is an appropriate wikia/offsite target. -- nae'blis (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All seriouse gamers? I don't know any Counter-Strike maps, but I am a very serious gamer and have been all my life. Maybe you should say all serious Counter-Strike fans know those maps. Having pages for indivdual maps is like having seperate pages for levels in a game or for different chapters in a book. Just put all those maps on one page with a short description of them, they are not notabel enought to be on thei own. Better yet, just delete them. TJ Spyke 05:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh, a serious gamer who has _never_ heard of dust? I highly doubt that. --Rake 08:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep I'm a serious gamer never heard of any of these maps. Then again haven't played CS since college... i.e. this isn't notable outside of the counter strike community . --Pboyd04 13:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete per Nae'blis and similar comments above. Even if maps are "the most played maps in computer FPS," must we go into detail on every one of them? Bringing up individual articles on TV shows like 24 doesn't sway me since I'm not really big on those, either. But maybe we can get something productive out of this--the development of a Wiki site on video games, if one doesn't exist already? These pages would be perfect on that kind of site. -- H·G (words/works) 06:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote change: STRONG Transwiki to CS Wikia. Just finished reading the above comments in full detail, did not notice before that this existed. Get this content off WP servers and onto that one. This solution should satisfy all parties--the information stays, WP servers don't bear the brunt of it. -- H·G (words/works) 06:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm always happy to restore deleted material for the purpose of transwiki, however most closers will read a transwiki as "delete from here first, try to move it somewhere else after." For example, if the desired transwiki target does not want the material it would not then be kept. - brenneman {L} 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the discussed pages should be transwikied to CS-Wiki, regardless of the decission here if they stay on wikipedia or not. Since this transaction is quite some work, and since they seem to have a some benefactors, I would wait for one of them to cater for them and to transwiki them, if it does not happen in the next near-future, well then I guess they weren't so important after all. Jestix 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Delete. Take it to the CS wiki. -- GWO
  • Strongest Keep. There is no question that CS is a worldwide sport. This fact puts it on the same footing as baseball, football, etc., and allows us to compare these articles to similar ones for these other sports. The "arena" that CS is played in are all of the above maps. For the same reason you would not delete articles about Arrowhead Stadium or Fenway Park, you should not delete these articles.
    • Comment. Sorry but saying "There is no question that CS is a worldwide sport" is not true, its definitely not an "Olympic Game". I don't say its not a sport, its hard to define, but I do argue that its definitely not indisputed! BTW: Please sign all posts with ~~~~Jestix 15:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the amount of detail is not needed.--Toffile 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. As someone who just went on Wikipedia to read this stuff. Counterstrike is one of the most popular online games, and these maps have been played by millions. I believe the popularity, the resourceful-and-thoroughness of many of them articles. To me, there's no doubt that de_dust, for example, is notable. Information about maps is not "a indiscriminate collection of information" (football grounds don't get deleted, as a contrast to a "real life" sport - Wembley Stadium gets less Google hits than de_dust2), and these articles don't contain walkthroughs. They contain information on something that is notable. I also don't believe transferring to an external Wiki is the answer either - that's just tantamount to deletion but without any conviction. Halo 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Number of google hits is not an actual answer to the question if its should be included in an encyclopedia. Google has also 331.000 recipies for piña cola, nevertheless a recipie should not be included to wikipedia. Other question if wikipedia would go in ever faintest detail about Counterstrike, what would the Counterstrike wiki be good for? They could then as well shut down their doors.... Jestix 21:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I realise this (although I only count 19,000 hits for "pina cola" as a term - I believe that maybe if it received 331,000 hits about a craze, it honestly might be worth an article, like drinks such as a Cosmopolitan have an article but no recipe), but it proves that something /is/ notable, is widely known (and, as such, people may search out an article on it) and as such not as fancrufty (Millions of pages really don't imply "cruft" to me). I honestly don't believe this is anymore fancruft or non-notable than an article about a sports stadium, which everyone would agree abnout it's inclusion. Saying that information here is making another Wiki redundant isn't of importance to this debate in the least - it does not add anything to the debate IMO. Halo 21:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google states that it is not not notable (they exist, they are varifiable and they appear widespread all over the internet). It helps show that these things exist, it's notable, and it's all over the internet. There's several pages about dust2. Maybe you should read it yourself? "It is also used to ascertain whether a topic is of sufficiently broad interest to merit inclusion in the wiki". IMO, it does ascertain this. I mean, I could do the Google groups test too and several of these maps appear hundreds of times (thousands in the case of dust2). These things /are/ talked about, well known and are not fly by nights, and as such /are/ notable topics, and as such do deserve a page. Maybe I'm being stupid, but please quote the section from that Search Engine Test article that I'm missing. Over 120,000 are playing Counterstrike right now [2], primarily on one of these maps. I call this notable.
  • It doesn't fit into any of the WP:NOT categories. These articles are certainly NOT game guides. They don't tell you how to win at the game, which is what the page implies. They are information about the maps.
  • It seems lots of people here are to jump onto cruft for anything non-physical, irrelevent of it's popularity. These maps have been around for 7 years, and are still extremely popular. For the record, I am particularly opposed to the deletion of the de_dust page - there's no doubt about that notability. Halo 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Bergan. ---Vladimir V. Korablin (talk) 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Closing Administrator - If you think there consensus to delete, then could you redirect the articles to the main Counter-Strike maps article instead of deleting them outright. The information in their history will go toward improving the main article up to and above the standards at Multiplayer in Halo: Combat Evolved and List of Battlefield 2 maps - Hahnchen 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge all into whatever article works. While I DO believe that these maps are individually notable, there is really no room to expand them sufficiently on their own. Merging would compile the (IMO) notable content into a sufficiently lengthy article, as well as giving all of the content a lot more context. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 06:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Despite the fact that many people see no use for these articles, I don't believe that every article needs to appeal to everyone. These are not game-guides, these are descriptions of popular levels and what is controversial/complained about/unique about them. Sure these maps may provide very little use to people who have never played counterstrike (provoking a call of -cruft) but they provide just as much information as episode articles would to people who have never seen the show. No good comes from deleting these. --Daniel Olsen 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Individual articles about episodes are just as bad ;) To honor encycopedian style, one merged article would be far nicer. And as I like articles that are graphically beautified, I do think for these maps this has been overdone, 1 - max 2 screenshots per map should be enough!... So okay you managed to change my vote to Merge, make them all redirects into one nice article that handles popular CS maps. --Jestix 07:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you're missing my point: these articles provide verifiable, good information to people who seek it, and as such, deserve a place in wikipedia. When server space runs out, then the deletionists can have their fun, but wikipedia is not a better encyclopaedia without them. --Daniel Olsen 07:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you're missing my point: in the last post I agreed that some have a place in wikipedia, the question is only: where? Are individual articles really the best solution, or would be one article about CS Maps, that covers individual maps in section not be nicer? --Jestix 08:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't comment on the notability of these maps, since I am not a Counter-Strike player. However, I believe in a strong keep for de_dust, not just because that map is unofficially the "face" of Counter-Strike, but also because it clearly doesn't fall into the instruction manual category (screenshots are there for critical commentary and identification, even if it's a bit messy). The history about the various versions and comparisons of the map moving from game to game in the CS series is keep-worthy, though it could use some more sources and cleaning up. So yes, in principle, a noteworthy map should be covered by Wikipedia, but as for the others, they should be individually AfD'd (and if notable enough, given a chance to be edited into proper articles, otherwise merged). --SevereTireDamage 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree here. I would take it analogous to fictional characters, while main characters are considered to be wikipedia mention worthy every character of a fiction is not. So keep important maps, but don't make an excessive collection about every CS-map that exists out there. ---Jestix
  • Keep or Merge, although some maps might not be merged into a big article because they are not notable enough. In general, notability is not an issue here and most of the articles are definately not guides. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cs_italy this is e.g. definitly a problem, first it's a guide, secondly its bad written, wikipedia as a lyrik source of songs thats are played in a game? I think this is a definitive No. --Jestix 13:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "critism" section in most of the article is in my opinion cruft, and is somehow close to a "map-writing guide" or game guide , and should be scrapped --Jestix 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you scrap the critism sections, leave de_dust as an own article, and cut down the enourmus number of disproportionate screenshots (3-4 screenshots per map, 24 maps -> aprox. 60-80 screenshots of Counterstrike in wikipedia, isn't that a bit much??), then the other maps would all nicely fit in one a bit larger article. --Jestix 13:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:NOT a game guide; there's a counterstrike Wiki, which is where these belong. Anyone who plays this sort of game doesn't need to look on WP for info, anyone who doesn't will never want to know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the "but-stadiums-of-'real life'-sports-have-articles let me give following reasoning. While A stadium might be of importance to an active liga football player, it is also important for a lot of people who don't play football themselfes each day. While a CS-map of absolute non-importance for a non-CS-gamer. --Jestix 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: even the real life stadium article ususally dont have a "critism" section, and not 4 screenshots/photos per stadium not to speak of floorplans like wikipedia has been consecrated for 24 floorplans of CS-maps. Can I have a total-level-view of every level from prince of persia and all its successors also please? --Jestix 20:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Whereas I have voted keep, I know that these articles are not in the best of states and a unilateral keep for the maps is not the greatest solution. But I just can't be bothered to argue this once every few weeks. If you see on Talk:De_inferno and Talk:Counter-Strike maps, you'll see that I'm not a massive fan of sections like "criticisms". If you look through the previous AFDs you'll also see that I don't think Surfing (Counter-Strike) should be kept at all. But please, stop with the AFDs for a few months at least, there's a lot to work through here. - Hahnchen 01:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahnchen brings up a very good point. If we are constantly fighting these AfD, it takes away time that we could be using to improve the articles. --Varco 06:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd just like to point out one thing. If you don't like an article, you have the choice to not read it. It's not hurting anybody by existing, and if people are interested, it's there. If I'm not interested in reading an article, I don't read it. As for the arguments for moving it to a CS-specific wiki, I believe that having it in Wikipedia is a better idea. What I stated above, combined with the fact that Wikipedia is a central source of information. People will tend to come to Wikipedia for information before they go to a topic-specific site. This holds true especially if they're just looking for an overview. I stay away from the computer game wikis because I really don't want to read about strategies. These articles provide a decent general overview of the maps, as well as some little-known facts. --Varco 06:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the same argumentation, if you don't like it, don't read it, I could also make an article about my hairdresser around the next corner, an article about the child of my syster and so on, however all this contents are non-encyclopediac and would definitly be deleted. Wikipedia for people looking for an overview... aren't the 24 maps with 3-4 screen shots, map critism and recensions not much too detailied information? For one thing I think its certaintly best to merge at least all de_* ce_* and so on togheter in articles. --06:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestix (talk • contribs)
      • Your example does not meet the notability guidelines. I said that assuming guidelines for inclusion were met. There are probably but a hundred people who would know your hairdresser, but millions of people know these maps. People actually look at these. --Varco 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree here, however you are now again arguing with notability, not with "If you don't like it, don't read it", this argument does not help anything to the questions notability/not notablity, and/or encylopedic/not encylopedic. --19:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:NOT. These articles stray into game guide and unencyclopedic territory that should be kept to gaming Wikis and the like. JimmyBlackwing 12:46, 22 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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Individual_Counter-Strike_maps