Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Drudge

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. —fetch ·comms 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Drudge

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

In-universe article about a non-notable fictional character. I42 (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following characters from the same game:

I just started editing this. I will add a lot later, I mean there's no point now. But if you will delete just let me get it all on a sandbox so that after Conduit 2 is released, I can put it up again. But I am still against the idea of deletion. I wil post later again why. --Schmeater (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't a wiki it's wikipedia. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, encyclopedia's too have information that can proved to be wrong event the next day. But they only reprint it when they have too. Encyclopedias have pages on every little thing. I don't want wikipedia to become a walkthrough encyclopedia, I just want it to have a vague description over every little thing. --Schmeater (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. See WP:WAF, especially the section about in-universe perspective. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also pertinent: Wikipedia does not cover every little thing I42 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got that, I just don't know if I put it properly into words. Is it possible to put the section about in-universe perspective that this is rumored because I have seen this on many other pages. And we're debating, I have put all the information into a sandbox page of mine in case this gets deleted. But it shouldn't with Conduit 2 coming out (if I recall a Master Chief page was made at that time as well) another Michael Ford page will erect. So why delete it when it'll just be made over and over again until we cannot delete it anymore. --Schmeater (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all back into The Conduit. Article as it stands now appears to be in-universe and doesn't adequately explain its context. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Nothing in these that passes WP:GNG that isn't already in The Conduit. --Teancum (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see we're going for a merger. But not into The Conduit, it's either merging it into Conduit (Series) or keeping it. I'm already tailoring information to that page so, we'll see how it goes. --Schmeater (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) This AfD has been running less than 24 hours and only two editors other than the article creator and AfD nominator have offered an opinion so far, and (b) one of those opinions is to merge, one is to delete. There is no consensus for anmy particular action at this point. I42 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Conduit's universe is neither notable nor expansive. Most of the information within the article is written in-universe, unreferenced and not notable. Marlith (Talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thing is not keep anymore, it's merge. But merge into Conduit (Series). So that means 2 delete and 2 merge. I42, I seriously reccomend merge. --Schmeater (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete all, there's no need to preserve edit history since it was all copy-pasta'd anyway. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of this material is written within our guidelines for fiction (WP:WAF); no sources are presented that suggest these are notable topics. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as I could not WP:verify notability. Would not object to someone creating a series article that summarized key plot elements. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable, unverifiable, in-universe fancruft. SnottyWong ^converse 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^converse 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for {{Rescue}} by anonymous IP 64.255.164.33 [1] in seeking assistance with its improvement. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as not demonstrating notability for a sub-article.--Milowent (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2010 (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.