Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factions of Halo

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 no consensus. Views split roughly equally between "keep" and "merge". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Factions of Halo

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, with no evident reason why the factions of Halo - as a group - are notable. The reception largely refers to Halo's AI, which is really an aspect of Halo's gameplay, not its fictional universe. I believe that if a faction cannot stand alone, like the Flood can, it should simply be explained in the list of characters before describing those who are part of it. There is no need for a faction list that is separate from the character one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo (franchise). While there is a critical reception, I find it hard to see how the reception of factions differs from that of the game. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, the factions itself also involves the later Halo games and the TV series. CastJared (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question What would be merged over? The article's are both large enough already. Dream Focus 13:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Dream Focus. This is asking for one rather long article to be merged into another rather long article. Which parts should be left out, and which included? Balancing "removing unimportant content" and "avoiding 'deletion by merge'" is hard in these cases. A detailed discussion would, of course, take place on a talk page if this discussion closes as a "merge," but I would ask people recommending that course to really examine the articles first. Joyous! Noise! 17:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very well written article. Lots of work and effort was clearly put into making it. It meets GNG, clearly. I don't see how it can really be merged and it definitely is too long for the main Halo article, so I think it should stay as a separate piece.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet most of it is just relevant to the game's design, not the actual races themselves. By far the most detailed explanation of a race, the section on Covenant, was simply merged there by the articles creator recently and can stand alone as an article with little problem. The other stuff is largely plotcruft or should be a part of the franchise or original game's article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the franchise article or Flood (Halo). The article for the Flood is well written and covers the only faction with significant coverage. I see some potential for an article about the Covenant, which might also potential merge target if someone can find enough sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: About that - Covenant WAS a standalone page and was redirected/merged despite the consensus to the contrary on the Factions of Halo talk page. I restored the page which does have enough sources to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Halo (franchise). I already made a suggestion to do this. CastJared (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this legitimate WP:SPINOUT. See also KatoKungLee who worded the same opinion in greater depth. gidonb (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where you got the idea it was a spinout from. It was created from scratch. When it was created, it was done without any secondary sources or assertion of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. Both Halo (franchise) and this article are long and mature and can live side by side. gidonb (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind there is also List of Halo characters which can easily fit this information. There has already been such a spinout, and an article on individual factions is duplicative. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on individual characters is also long enough. Its intro is even tagged as too long! Efforts should concentrate in the article space. gidonb (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Characters can also have background information on their race or faction. It would not make the article overly long if the non-notable fancruft was pruned out and a selective merge was made. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article already suggested a merger. CastJared (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree this is legitimate spinout article. Too much valid information couldn't be merged without making the other article too long. Dream Focus 23:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo (franchise) as being wholly reliant on primary and affiliated sources (not meeting the general notability guideline). Remove the unsourced content and minimize the primary sourced content to focus on the secondary sourced content and what remains would fit sufficiently in the parent franchise article within its respective existing sections (fictional elements under "Plot", etc.) It makes little sense to call this a "spinout" article when it's clear that there was no attempt to cover these topics in summary style depth in the parent article. czar 19:56, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The OP's deletion rationale, which relies on a flawed interpretation of WP:DISCRIMINATE, an essay of opinion, is noted but not accepted. As a few other editors have pointed out, there is also no practical consideration to merge a valid spinout article the size of Factions of Halo, especially when an argument about the topic's alleged lack of notability as per WP:GNG is not properly articulated. On a related note, while there is indeed no consensus to take Covenant (Halo) out of mainspace, what was brought back by the OP as of January 2023 is a rather subpar attempt that do little to convince other editors that an article about such a topic can stand on its own. Haleth (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: You seem to have misread my rationale, as I linked to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not WP:DISCRIMINATE. The latter is indeed an essay, while the former is a policy.

Re: The lack of notability, please see WP:BURDEN. It is not the responsibility of the nominator to lay out a detailed source by source analysis. Simply stating it is not notable is sufficient, when an admin checks for themselves and sees, even if people deny it.

Re: Recreating the Covenant article, no it was not an attempt at anything, that is a direct assumption of WP:BADFAITH and an WP:ADHOMINEM argument. I literally just happened to notice it had been redirected, I assume because the creator of the Factions article did not realize consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Everyone has good points, but i think the factions of Halo are relevant enough for their own article. Merging seems like a reasonable option until you realize it makes the main Halo article way to long. Blitzfan51 (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between those wanting to Keep this article and those seeking a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to qualifying as a child article of the notable Halo (franchise), the factions and how they interact with one another in the fictional universe have received SIGCOV in their own right. A move might be appropriate to List of Halo factions or something similar. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where is this coverage then? This is just a claim of WP:SOURCESEXIST but with none of the evidence presented. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a strong policy-based rationale for keeping, but there are also valid arguments for merging instead. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "keep" arguments are WP:ITSNOTABLE. However, no sources have been shown discussing the factions of Halo as a whole. The closest one will get to that is a discussion of the sub factions of the Covenant, for which there's already an article. The article is WP:SYNTH combining various statements on various factions to reach the conclusion they're notable as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been several comments as to how this meets the GNG, but there has been no explanation as to why and review of the sourcing. I am relisting this in hopes that an analysis of those points emerge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The Factions article was created way back when as a way to prevent a bunch of recreations and serve essentially as a quarantine against more cruft expansion. It's never been meaningfully restructured because there's not a ton on the individual factions beyond game reception and a few older scholarly subjects, and they're definitely almost never discussed in context of the factions as a whole, which would be necessary for a GNG pass; while the article could be better than it currently is, I don't think it ever could be good, and a lot of the relevant real-world tidbits can just be included in the series article or other places (development of the visual look of the Covenant, for example, in Halo: Combat Evolved, or their redesigns in the relevant other game articles.) The only ironclad GNG pass is the Flood, and they've already got an article. Broadly speaking, there's not really any reason readers need to know about the various species in the Covenant, etc. to understand game articles, and the franchise article will not suffer SIZE issues from folding in the relevant bits. I don't get why the Covenant article was spun out again, either, when the GAR agreed it didn't particularly demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I mentioned that Covenant might qualify for a stand-alone article if someone could find enough sources. I meant that as an alternative to this non-notable list, and not as an addition. I don't think there's a consensus to spin Covenant out as a separate article yet, and that should be reverted until there is a proper discussion. Making major changes during an AFD makes discussion more confusing, and makes it harder to build a consensus. It's led to contradictory AFD comments on how to handle the notable (and non-notable) factions of Halo. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was already consensus not to merge, but it was redirected anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:51, 29 March 2023 (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.