Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conduit (Series)

Add links
From 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conduit (Series)

[edit]
Conduit (Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is simply a duplicate of The Conduit, which the author acknowledges because he linked to that when he create it. The article should probably have been speedy deleted under category A10 and possibly still could be, although the article is now three months old. Note that this article now contains additional biographies of characters from the game not in The Conduit; these have recently been merged in by the same author because the separate articles on them have been nominated for deletion - but there is no consensus yet to merge, and if there is they can still be merged to an appropriate target; there is no need for them here. Delete as an unneccessary duplicate or an inappropriate fork of the original. I42 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was planning on editing anything that didn't make sense, add tables and all such to the article as I will do to make it more graphic than The Conduit and Conduit 2. --Schmeater (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are things to consider doing in the original article. We don't run parallel articles on the same subject. I42 (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but I'm considering those things and I'm going to take more than add. --Schmeater (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! As more information comes out, we cannot put it all into Conduit 2. I'm cleaning up this article. I can add more coverage! --Schmeater (talk)
What establishes notability here? I understand you want to contribute, and I'm glad you are, but articles must meet the General Notability Guidelines and be referenced with reliable, published sources. I can't find any reliable sources in regards to the series as a whole, nor the characters themselves - only sources on one game or the other. Also, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Series articles should deal less with telling things from an in-universe perspective, and more about the development of the series, the reception, sales, legacy, etc. It has to have some background, sure, but it needs to be balanced, much like The Conduit is. The series hasn't been established by reliable sources as notable at this point. However, I'd be willing to have this article userfied to your own personal user page so that you can continue to develop it. It may be notable once the sequel is out and the media starts to cover the series, but right now there's no coverage at all on the series as a whole. --Teancum (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, two games do not a series make. Come back in three years when you have another two games in your series. The "article" is just a bunch of in-universe babble which should already be adequately covered in the main game page, which it is (kudos to whoever made the main article so good, btw, it looks almost GA quality). Axem Titanium (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how does Halo become a series at three games (I'm talking about when it's page was made). --Schmeater (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it had multiple books released at that time as well. --Teancum (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know the full plot of Conduit 2.--Schmeater (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which, no offense, even further proves the point that its not time for a series article. --Teancum (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there might be enough common elements between the two games for a series article. Once the game comes out it is more likely. This is a better way to cover some of those common plot elements too. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has undergone further changes since nomination: the game articles have been removed leaving only the character / faction sections; the article should probably therefore be renamed appropriately. Note that the separate AfD on the separate character articles at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Drudge is running in parallel and now essentially concerns the same subject. I42 (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger issue is that there isn't enough coverage on the series to pass WP:GNG. --Teancum (talk) 21:07, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conduit_(Series)&oldid=1137730451"