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. Not suitable for a merge, only one argument to 'keep'. Neil (►) 11:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conc jumping

[edit]
Conc jumping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This was recently in a no consensus AFD group nom here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straferunning. I am nominating this again as the grouping of articles was not optimal. No reliable sources were given then and the article seems to be entirely original research. This is game guide material or possibly unverifiable/OR. Googling only brings up various forums and fanvideos. Delete due to lack of reliable third-party sources Wickethewok 03:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think there's a need or reason to do that. The articles' merits are separate - perhaps there are sources for one and not the other. The previous AFD's decision was to renominate separately, so thats why they are nominated this way. Wickethewok 08:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Game Informer article barely mentions it. Could quote what the video says about it? (Its taking forever to download). Also, note that "conc jumping" is already mentioned in the TF2 article. Wickethewok 18:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video shows the developers discussing in depth why conc jumping is being removed from the game mechanics in TF2 as well as several segments demonstrating various forms of conc jumping including: accessing out of bounds map area in 2fort and a custom practise map which requires multiple jumps in order to scale a sheer wall. Conc jumping is specific to Team Fortress Classic and thus should not be merged with the TF2 article. Conc jumping requires the use of timed grenades which can also be triggered while held and thus completely distinct from rocket jumping. It also preserves the original momentum of the player which makes it more akin to bunny hopping or surfing than rocket/grenade jumping. It is considered such a major element in competitive play that it rendered the Scout class obsolete (one of the main reasons given for its removal). Conc jumping is also included in Fortress Forever (http://www.fortress-forever.com/) and GabeN TF2, a build of TF2 based on the code that was leaked along with Half Life 2 http://www.sentinel3.com/gaben/index.php?title=Team_Fortress_2_(GabeN). --89.242.150.190 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I still don't think it needs a separate article. Why can't it be merged into the TF articles? If its so important, it should be mentioned there anyway and creating a separate article for it would just be redundant. Wickethewok 20:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Why can't it be merged into the TF articles?" note the plural. You've got a mechanic that's important and affects multiple games. Is there a specific reason to merge it to one article? Its hardly a stub. You've got primary sources (from the developers), secondary sources (guides to conc jumping and maps) and tertiary sources (definitions in several gaming glossaries/dictionaries). Its not proposing a new method or theory i.e. "original research". Its not a vanity page. Its not a guide to a specific game. The article itself is not poorly written or fancruft. As noted, there are already several articles on specific gaming mechanics such as rocketjumping and bunnyhopping. Why delete it when you can define and expand on it in one place? --89.242.145.251 06:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire article has no cites and I think some of it at least is OR. The stuff you've shown I don't think is enough for a separate article. If this information is actually important, it needs to be in the games' articles, so you're really not "expanding it one place". Anyways, thats what I have to say. Opinions from anyone else besides me? Wickethewok 09:04, 29 May 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.
More