Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular Counter-Strike hacks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 01:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Popular Counter-Strike hacks[edit]
Delete. Unencyclopedic (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DOOM cheats), name is NPOV (popular according to who?). If info is worth keeping, it belongs on Counter-Strike page. -- 8^D gab 17:57, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. This article is merely linkspam. We already have Cheating in Counter-Strike, anyway (which is also a bit excessive IMHO). --InShaneee 18:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Game hacks may deserve a mention in the main article, but not an article of their own, unless they've achieved special fame aside from the game itself (like the Konami Code). Not only that, but this article is poorly written and unencyclopedic in tone and form. "WORD OF WARNING! Many of these hacks will contain malware, steal your cd keys, passwords, credit card information, abuse your webcam and destroy your computer! Anti-virus software cannot protect you from this! Additionally, getting caught cheating usually means being banned from the entire Steam network! Absolutely only use these links at your own risk!" Just what we need. Firebug 19:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I am well aware of this. The problem is that an article like Cheating in Counter-Strike tends to attract kiddies. The article is merely there to channel the urges of the kiddies into something productive, instead of vandalizing the main article with links. Leave it, eventually it'll become something better looking than this current, ugly linkspam. I don't like it either but I prefer this over having people (kiddies) lay waste on the main article. Dabljuh 19:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- While I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure that is a valid reason for keeping this article. It seems to me a bit too much like capitulating to vandals. Firebug 21:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Firebug (predictably, I'm sure, since I nominated). Fear of vandalism on the main article is a poor justification for keeping a non-notable offshoot written in a wholly unencyclopedic manner. We can protect the main article itself well enough. -- 8^D gab 21:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
- Concur with that. Delete and protect the cheating article when/if necessary. Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that the article isn't a nice sight, but I'm pretty sure it can be made to look more encyclopedic and professional if I / someone else finds time to update it. Originally someone updated the main article with this content, and I didn't want to erase it since somebody told me he found it valuable. On the other hand, it already has been vandalized, which probably took off some destructive energy from the main article? The section vandalized is interesting: Most cheaters don't realize the most common reason public cheats are released are to get passwords. Dabljuh 20:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Concur with that. Delete and protect the cheating article when/if necessary. Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Firebug (predictably, I'm sure, since I nominated). Fear of vandalism on the main article is a poor justification for keeping a non-notable offshoot written in a wholly unencyclopedic manner. We can protect the main article itself well enough. -- 8^D gab 21:45, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
- While I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure that is a valid reason for keeping this article. It seems to me a bit too much like capitulating to vandals. Firebug 21:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs, and not a place to post cheats and hacks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Destroy all gamecruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate the fact that Dabljuh explained his/her motivation. I don't think that makes enough reason to compromise our mission or standards. Delete and let the regular anti-vandalism processes work. Rossami (talk) 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Carnildo 22:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Who needs to cheat anyway? - Longhair | Talk 16:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete trivia/howto CDC (talk) 23:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.