Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Emperor: Battle for Dune

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.Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units in Emperor: Battle for Dune

Does not pass the Wikipedia general notability guideline because the notability of the Units in Emperor: Battle for Dune cannot be shown by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Also violates the guidelines WP:GAMETRIVIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE for going into unnecessary detail about game weapons that would only be found in a game guide. Randomran (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a dune fan myself I can see no reason to delete this article, its is bothe lengthy and imformative Prom3th3an (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Useful" is not a reason to keep. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be, if not a very strong one. Certainly "useless" is a reason for deletion. Nevertheless, this is too much detail for us to handle and just doesn't do very much for our coverage of a game with many divergences from its source material and few from its genre. (C&C was Super Dune II Turbo, Dune games tend to be conventional.) There are some exceptions with the subhouse system and the combination of novel carryalls with older-than-dirt harvesters, so I'm going with redirect instead of delete to preserve article history. Some of this stuff can come in handy elsewhere. --Kiz o r 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please avoid arguments such as "It's useful" and "A lot of people have added to this article." ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let's be fair here: That's an essay - a series of arguments. It can counter other arguments, sure, but name-dropping it in the exact same manner one would name-drop a rule to squash an argument seems, I don't know, giving it too much weight. --Kiz o r 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit I probably link to policies, guidelines and esssays a little too much in AfD's, however, these are legitimate responses in this context and a better alternative to reinventing the wheel. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 21:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 11:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per similar outcome for similar Command & Conquer article. Punkmorten (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and Delete as per WP:GAMECRUFT. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 13:17, 2 June 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.