Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life 2: Episode Four
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Half-Life 2: Episode Four[edit]
Details are far too vague, seems to be a mere rumor. Would be more appropriate to have an article when more information is known. PureLegend 16:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete way too early, and very crystalballish. Only speculation could be put in this article.--Andeh 22:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, crystal-ballism. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 01:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was under the impression they were planning to make three episodes only. While further ones aren't out of the bounds of possibility, it's way too early to have an article on something that might possibly exist someday, especially without any official word on it. ~Matticus TC 12:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pure rumors and speculation, this does not belong as a page. --Jack Zhang 08:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Thunderbrand 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Thunderbrand 17:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete maybe it's the same guy who wrote the Tekken 7 article ;) And yeah, I figured after Three they'd stop, and then just start with Half-Life 3 or something else. -- gakon5 18:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. Combination 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Stellmach 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, crystal ball --Wafulz 15:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: uncontroversial deletions like this one are good candidates for the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process currently being tested out. Consider using that simpler process for the next similar nomination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 2 August 2006 (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.