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. As with many game guide articles, Man in Black's argument says it all: this is original research or nothing. The only argument the keep side has for this not falling into the "game guide" material explicitly prohibited by What Wikipedia is not is the material about the "evolution" of the units; without sourcing other than expecting readers looking for verifiability to play one game and then play another, this is classic original research. Unreferenced tags are for articles which lack sources but the subject has them available; despite this AfD remaining open for a week after normal time no available sources have been nominated and it is clear that such a tag would not improve anything. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Units in Nintendo Wars[edit]

This subject is wholly unnecessary and unsuitable for a general encyclopedia. Its counterpart for Advance Wars was deleted awhile ago, so I'm surprised this is still hanging around. This adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the game and is only useful to players of the game. Delete. Wickethewok 21:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I disagree. The article focuses on a historical overview of how the units were designed over the course of a popular series including eight games. I have never played these games, and it's unlikely I ever will, since they probably won't be translated into English - however, I found this very interesting and notable since the Advance Wars games did make it out of Japan. I'm sure there are many others, not only just fans of the Nintendo Wars series, but those who have a interest in strategy game design who would find this type of article encyclopedic. There was some more POV material in the article before, but I've tried to remove anything that sounds like an original speculative opinion. As for the Units in Advance Wars AfD, that article had considerably more unencyclopedic material in it, and I supported the transwiki and merge of that article. However, the rationale for deleting that article doesn't apply here. --SevereTireDamage 22:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - All the information here seems pretty trivial. How does it increase someone's knowledge of the subject knowing that (for example), that the train gun has a "fierce firing range" or that the small aircraft carrier holds three units instead of four? This article is many times larger than the Nintendo Wars article. All of the important general information should be there, instead of hundreds of little unit details in a separate article. Also, there really aren't any reliable secondary sources on the subject of "Units in Nintendo Wars" anyway aside from game guides. Wickethewok 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Nintendo Wars. --Gray Porpoise 22:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Deep, severe gamecruft. Move to a gaming wiki if creators want Bwithh 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT Delete. At the very least, we want the information kept around. We should consider starting a Wiki for Nintendo Wars and Nectaris. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a change: it may be worthy of staying if it includes a short overview of unit evolution from the first Wars game to the last Nintendo DS version. - Roma_emu 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This will never be anything but a game guide or original research. There aren't any sources other than the games themselves for the "evolution" of the units in the game, so there's going to be a lot of original research going on comparing one game's units to another's. If you ditch the evolution bit, you're just left with descriptions of the capabilities of each unit, which isn't at all encyclopedic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOR. Whispering^(talk/c) 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOR. Good writing, no sources. JoshWook 14:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NOR, WP:NOT a game guide. Sandstein 16:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above --Peephole 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per SevereTireDamage. Also, note that this isn't a game guide. You have to read closely but it's pretty apparent that it's a history of how unit capabilities changed across the entire series. With the exception of a few sentences that anyone here can easily remove, there is no "do this, do that for TEH WIN!" Therefore, not a game guide. I agree that some of the information is not of interest but this article can be pruned. I see no rationale for its full deletion. Lastly, failing to cite sources is not grounds for deletion. We have a category in fact devoted to articles without sources, remember? -- Solberg 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

• Sources are not optional, I don't know why people that slapping on the no-references tag makes it alright. Wickethewok 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't have a point here. Sources are not optional in the sense that they have to eventually be in the article. But we don't delete articles because they don't have sources at a certain moment (undeniable given the unreferenced category whether you like it or not), we only delete them if they *can't* have sources-- for instance if the information is either false or unverifiable. What makes you think the information here is either? -- Solberg 07:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]

• Actually, I am saying there aren't any sources. According to WP:V, "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" after the editors have been given a chance to provide sources and have failed to. See WP:V#Burden_of_evidence for the whole thing about why information that remains unsourced after an extended period of time needs to be removed. Wickethewok 13:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Either merge this into Nintendo Wars, or merge the info about the units from the Advance Wars games' pages into this, and clean up this article. --Quadraxis 14:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - After over a week, there still aren't any sources. Wickethewok 14:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - Thorough and well-written article. Not a game guide, because it does not tell you how to play the game. Not original research, because the article need only cite the games themselves as primary sources. This is no different from an article about any work of fiction or other artifact. If it makes unverifiable statements, delete only those statements. If it is missing references for verifiable but unsourced statements (like a large number of Wikipedia articles are), fix those or add a tag. — brighterorange (talk) 15:37, 18 August 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.