Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Crusader equipment
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Kurykh 20:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Crusader equipment
- List of Crusader equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Fails Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE SkyWalker (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also i want to bring this to your attention. Should this article be deleted List of Crusader enemies or merge to List of Crusader characters. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I worked on and like this article I endorse the delete vote since this is not encyclopedia material.--Fogeltje (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - excessive list on a subject that fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:VGSCOPE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete– Not a game guide. MuZemike (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- as per WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:VGSCOPE, and WP:GNG. Not notable, and too much detail on actual game mechanics to warrant inclusion in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Clear editorial effort underway to improve, sufficient reader interest, and enough references that these three things combined demonstrate notability and potential. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you've ignored the first pillar, which is WP:NOT. You also said twice that this is notable, with insufficient evidence that it meets our notability guidelines. WP:INTERESTING and WP:GOOGLEHITS are not generally considered good arguments for keeping. This article is being nominated for deletion because it fails to comply with policy and guidelines. So address those concerns specifically. Randomran (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is consistent with the first pillar, i.e. "aspects of specialized encyclopedias". It is notable, because it is covered in multiple reliable sources and concerns equipment and weapons that don't merely appear in one game, but multiple games. Interesting and Google Hits alone may be insufficient but as part of a larger argument, they are fine. The article passes and complies with our policies and guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But you've ignored the first pillar, which is WP:NOT. You also said twice that this is notable, with insufficient evidence that it meets our notability guidelines. WP:INTERESTING and WP:GOOGLEHITS are not generally considered good arguments for keeping. This article is being nominated for deletion because it fails to comply with policy and guidelines. So address those concerns specifically. Randomran (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reprints of press releases don't help to establish notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:10, 3 July 2008 (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.