Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action (gaming)

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. Sr 13 03:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Action (gaming)

WP:NOT#IINFO; just a list of movements that can be done in video games; you can run... you can jump... in some games you can walk. Any potential encyclopedic information is covered in the articles in the "See also" section. How about an Action (real life) article? You can walk... you can eat... you can edit Wikipedia. Masaruemoto 02:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not only is this a fantastic example of WP:NOT#IINFO, but the information itself is completely worthless.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calgary (talk • contribs).
Delete I can't tell if it's a joke or serious, either way it's rubbish. JohnnyMrNinja 02:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, being an article by Eep², this isn't a joke. This editor has a reputation for creating "unconventional" articles which frequently get deleted, but he continues to create them. Masaruemoto 02:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You can delete non-encyclopedic articles form Wikipedia. --Evb-wiki 03:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Oyster guitarist 05:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as inherently unencyclopedic. Blueboy 96 12:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as silly. How about actions in movies? Do they run sometimes in movies too? What about TV movies? Do they ever run in those? Or jump? Do they jump? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is a stub of a history of arcade/computer/video game actions that has progressed over the course of time and is completely encyclopedic (as much as any historical account of anything else is). Just because you people aren't into gaming doesn't mean other people are and will find this information interesting and encylopedic. ∞Σしぐまɛ_Þ² ^(τたう|c) 19:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#IINFO, I really don't under the purpose of this in the context of an encyclopedia and I AM into gaming. --Fredrick day 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then be prepared to delete signature move, finishing move, combo (video games), desperation attack, and special attack, too. Why should fighting games have any special treatment? The action gaming article isn't indiscriminate; it consolidates existing action articles and expands onto them with a historical perspective in the context of greater gaming actions. ∞Σしぐまɛ_Þ² ^(τたう|c) 20:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. I may change my mind if the article can be properly cited to reliable sources (I can't find any myself, but it's something that's hard to Google). -- MisterHand 21:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More refs were added. It's not hard if you try... ∞Σしぐまɛ_Þ² ^(τたう|c) 02:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Unfortunately, the new sources have nothing to do with the main body of the article. -- MisterHand 02:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they do. But, really, each game's moves don't need to be documented. Most game articles on Wikipedia are sorely unreferenced; why focus on this one? That smells of stalkingness, to me. Besides, the article is a stub and it takes times to find references... ∞Σしぐまɛ_Þ² ^(τたう|c) 02:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, unsourced, indiscriminate collection of information, trivial, etc. And someone throw some baked WP:BEANS at Masaruemoto for that red-link :) Stifle (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. ∞Σしぐまɛ_Þ² ^(τたう|c) 02:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Masaruemoto said it all. This is just an anti-Eep² nomination, there is nothing at all wrong with the article. It's like deleting Video Game citing it as un-encyclopedic because everyone knows what a video game is anyway. This is a vital concept in the scope of video gaming, and should thus be kept. Giggy _U^CP 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith, the arguments for deletion are a good indicator that this isn't a bad faith nom. --Core desat 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and over-simplification. Andre (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced original research. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a dictionary. --Core desat 06:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly idiosyncratic and far too general topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete; might make sense in some other context or form, but this article is incomplete, undirected, and wrong. (e.g. "pre-animated through scripting (artificial intelligence)"? huh? In pong you "ran" at one speed? The versions I know use an analog paddle...) — brighterorange (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article - no per nom. A history of the develpoment of action in gaming starting with Pong - Yes. (e.g., the action of jumping first was introduced in xxx. Jumping occured before climbing because xxx. Xxx created a need for climbing, which expanded into xxx games very quickly.) -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 19:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. Mango juice^talk 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What next List of actions required to get into a car? DarkSaber2k 08:36, 11 July 2007 (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.