Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter (Halo)

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 redirect to Covenant (Halo)#Species. MBisanz ^talk 13:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter (Halo)[edit]

This is a type of enemy found in the Halo (series) video games. The other enemies are under Covenant (Halo)#Species, and a section there for the Hunter already exists. The individual species are not worth individual articles, with the exception of Elite (Halo). Elites are noteworthy because they have their own story arc and the player can actually play as one in the later games of the series. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Mostly game guide information, and the only references are to the instruction manual and to Wikia, neither of which are considered reliable sources at the slightest. MuZemike (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game guide information. RockManQ (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent WP:GAMEGUIDE. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Covenant (Halo)#Species cites a wikia and a non-independent document. Not likely to be found in reliable, independent sources. However, if material is shared between this and a list, it is likely that some has been borrowed back and forth, so we might as well maintain attribution. Protonk (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There does seem to be no significant content beyond that already in the main article, but there's no reason given why a redirect isn't suitable. DGG (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the article's history notable by any means? If not, there is no reason to. It is not a viable search team as is. MuZemike (talk) 03:29, 20 September 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.