Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-smack

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 of the debate was - redirect and merge

Counter-smack

94 Google hits, most of them irrelevant. Neologism, original research, POV. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 03:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merge into Counter-Strike, like "EverCrack" in EverQuest. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Two comments have appeared on the talk page:

Counter-smack is a valid definition of what many people go through when they play online games. It would be a shame to delete it, as it could become a very real problem in the near future. Even today, many people are experiencing difficulties balancing school, work, and online gaming. (from User:128.211.226.114)

If you wish to write about the addictiveness of video games, you are welcome to contribute to video game controversy or to make a new article like video game addiction, but a practically unused term referring to one specific game's addiction potential is nothing special enough to merit an encyclopedia article. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 04:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's silly to ignore internet culture. Terms like 1337 (leet) and others are invading pop culture as we speak, and any real encyclopedia won't ignore this. Deleting this would be an error as egregious as when Wikipedia deleted the term "nubsauce". Damn you all to hell for ignoring internet culture. (from User:161.32.76.54)

It would indeed be silly to ignore such things. That's why we have an article callet leet, and other articles relating to Internet culture. We are not ignoring Internet culture; it's just that we can't have an article on every new word someone invents on the Internet, as it would be too confusing and impossible to maintain. Let's leave that to the folks at Urban Dictionary. If you want to write about the addictiveness of Counter-Strike or slang terms for it, you should do so at the Counter-Strike article, where everybody knows to go for information about that game. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 04:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yet another comment from the talk page:

Please do not delete this article without some deliberation and discussion. It's not as if we're adding this term merely to be assholes, it's a real term emerging within the game of counter-strike itself and is used by THOUSANDS of players everyday. As a player of counter-strike who often plays for 8 or more hours per day, I can attest to this fact.

In addition, it cannot be ignored that counter is still the MOST POPULAR GAME IN THE ENTIRE WORLD. Check the statistics on valve's website, but amongst true internet users, not stuck-up wikipedia editors who have no knowledge of the digital world, it is widely known that counter-strike will continue to dominate rising internet culture. If wikipedia continues to arbitarily ban informations without any consideration at all, what will the encyclopedia be reduced too? Bush supporters and people who love 7th heaven?

Take the tenets of free speech on the internet seriously. That's all I ask. Give us some time for discussion.

The Article is quite relevant to a problem that has consumed a generation. It's important that it be discussed so that a solution may be found. (from User:12.210.176.182)

I can assure you we are not "arbitrarily banning information". We are giving it discussion. That's what the Votes for Deletion process is for. We discuss the merits of the articles here and decide whether the article meets encyclopedic standards. I'm no Bush or 7th Heaven fan by any stretch, but here I put all those biases aside and decide whether or not the article really belongs in an encyclopedia. A term used to describe people addicted to an online game that hardly appears anywhere online is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 04:16, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only reason I asked for discussion is because I placed the article up on the website tonight, and it was deleted within 12 minutes. I'm sure that other players will attest to the popularity of this term and its relevance to internet culture. I personally did not invent this word, it was grown and nurtured within the gaming environment. It has a history and popularity. Others will attest to this fact as long as you leave it up for discussion. Thanks.

Also, there is no need to insult the urban dictionary. (from User:161.32.76.54)

It was not "deleted within 12 minutes". It was nominated for eventual deletion, which could occur 5 days from now at the earliest, if the consensus is to delete. Discussion will be open until then, as the procedures dictate. If you are right and lots of other Wikipedians do usher in and tell me about the great popularity of this term in Internet culture despite its low Google and Usenet search results, then I will concede my point and change my vote. However, I consider that rather unlikely. And I was not insulting the UrbanDictionary; I consider it a useful and interesting project, and was merely making the point that they keep the definitions of all sorts of newly-coined words, which is not something we cover (or should cover) here at Wikipedia. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 05:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually it was speedied once (from WP:DL):

02:57, 7 Dec 2004 Postdlf deleted Counter-smack (nonsense about addictive qualities of particular video game)

That wasn't right, as it's not nonsense nor any valid CSD. User was right in re-creating it. Now it will be VfD'd, which is the right process - and that result will stand. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 05:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merge with redirect into Counter-Strike. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I still stand by my earlier speedy deletion, as the degree of hyperbole in this "article" renders its content pure nonsense. Unless we want to accept that people who try to stop playing the game exhibit visible withdrawal symptoms through vomiting and becoming violent. There is nothing valid to merge. Postdlf 05:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Postdlf: Please review WP:CSD and WP:PN. This article fits none of the criteria for CSD, and is not nonsense by WP's definition. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Maybe tack a single sentence on to the Counter-Strike article explaining how some players use this word, but don't give it the medical credibility this article tries to. -R. fiend 07:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Edit out the exaggerations, and merge with videogame addiction or video game controversy or similar, with a pointer from Counter-Strike. Anthony Appleyard 07:20, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete Article is exagerated (vomiting?), although the term should probably be mentioned over in Counter-Strike. Wyss 20:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Merge into counter-strike. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
Delete or merge. Neologism. --Improv 22:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, don't redirect. I've played CS since 2000 and have never heard this term. None of the first 10 results from Google are referring to Counter-Strike and a search that includes both "Counter-Smack" and "Counter-Strike" returns just 1 (irrelevant) page. --Mrwojo 23:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Merge valid parts to Counter Strike. I've copied the BJAODN to, well... to BJADON... where else? --L33tminion | (talk) 21:05, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

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.