Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action (gaming)

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. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|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. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|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... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|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... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|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. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 02:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]