Deletion of Plasma Rifle (Halo)

Comment: All I ask is that  a game guide should NOT be used as the justification for deletion.  These unreferenced articles are quite clearly , so why can't we simply use that as argument and be done with it?  Well, the reason is obvious - contrary to Whispering, a number of people interested in deleting "gamecruft" are trying to make a  and continue building precedent.  Either stop and open up a discussion to clarify the policy, or vote to delete based on notability, verifiability, or original research.  Any of those reasons are fine.  But there is clearly not a consensus on the boundaries of  when it comes to what constitues a "how-to" in reference to game-related material
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:OR||WP:POINT||WP:NOT)

Comment: How about  is that a real reason? Because that's what these articles are
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: per there being no real reason for deletion.  |Wikipedia is not paper
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: If you had actually read the AFD, you would see that I voted to "delete" for reasons of .  The only problem I have is that "Cruft" is not a valid reason to delete.  There is no wikipedia policy (or even guideline) on it, only some vague essays.  When the argument of "cruft" is used in place of citing valid policy, all it leads to is a bunch of polarized opinions on whether editors "like" the topic being discussed, as opposed to whether they meet wikipedia's well defined requirements for encyclopedic writing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)