Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call of Duty: Black Ops II downloadable content

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. Consensus is for deletion, essentially per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:CONTENTFORK. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty: Black Ops II downloadable content

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed without explanation. Deletion rationale: this isn't much different from cruft--a rather trivial listing (from an encyclopedic point of view) of smaller and bigger "accessories" that one can get for a game, where "verification", if it were to be added, consists of product mentions. If any of this information is relevant one way or the other, and verifiably so, it can easily be added to the main article. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The major content that matters, the four DLC packs, is already more heavily detailed at the main article than here. That leaves the table of various microtransactions. The main article has a short and concise sourced paragraph on it already. The details of each pack is unimportant and doesn't really need merging or inclusion. No need for a fork here. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Microtransactions are notable? As Ferret said the main article covers the major DLC packs in better details than this list does. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that this is overly-detailed and redundant to the main article. This sort of intricate detail is more suited to a fan site at Wikia. We know it exists, but there isn't a compelling case for notability beyond that of the game itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unneccesary article spinout. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will point out that while the first table in this of the added map expansions is fair game for inclusion as encyclopedic material it is already covered (in prose) in the main article, so rendering any merge unnecessary. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2016 (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.