Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Street Fighter IV
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 keep. Editorial decisions over merges should be handled on respective talk pages. No reason to delete has been brought forward, nominator has recognised his mistake. - hahnchen 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super Street Fighter IV[edit]
- Super Street Fighter IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Merge: The whole content of the article is already included in a section in the article for Street Fighter IV. The information exclusive to Super SFIV is not enough to merit its own article, at least not for the time being. Also, the information in the SFIV article is much more elaborate, showing that most editors keep updating the SFIV article and not the separate one. uKER (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand: Article looks fine as it's own independent article with the exception of it being a stub. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting losing the content. Only keeping it in the Street Fighter IV article until there's enough information to merit a separate article. --uKER (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my decision. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting losing the content. Only keeping it in the Street Fighter IV article until there's enough information to merit a separate article. --uKER (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course. We don't delete clearly notable articles, we expand them with verifiable information. Nominator acted against consensus in performing a merge of this article in to Street Fighter IV, and is now trying to delete it to enforce his view. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, really? Now where was that consensus reached? I surely must have missed it. BTW, you keep trying to make it appear as if I'm trying to dump the information and crying out for its notability when nobody is questioning it. It's just that things don't work the way you're proposing. Things don't first get a separate article and then eventually get merged if there's nothing to say about them (thus your calling my merge "premature"). It's the other way round. The game is little more than a patch to SFIV adding a couple of new characters and moves. I say keep it as a section and if some day it reaches enough individuality, only then reverse merge into a separate article. --uKER (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, really. It was reached on the talk page, where there was no consensus for a merge (thus we maintain the status quo; a separate article). Also, WP:N makes no distinction between subjects which are "patches" as you call them and full fledged games. The topic, Super Street Fighter IV is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia in an article of its own. As the title isn't even released yet (and thus, information is still coming out) it's premature to force a merge at this stage. I've expressed fuller views on the talk page, which is where you should have kept this discussion, but you didn't like the result there, so now we're here where you can ask the other parent if it's okay... —Locke Cole • t • c 08:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Are you even aware that the SSFIV section existed long before I merged the article, and furthermore, my merging consisted of virtually NOTHING, since the article lacked anything worth adding? See for yourself here. Don't just look at the big colorey blocks. Look at the text and find the differences. Now here is your reverse merge. Now, you tell me, who's keeping status quo and who's forcing their liking down other people's throats? 90% of the content was written in the SFIV page. You want status quo? LEAVE IT THERE. --uKER (talk) 10:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, really. It was reached on the talk page, where there was no consensus for a merge (thus we maintain the status quo; a separate article). Also, WP:N makes no distinction between subjects which are "patches" as you call them and full fledged games. The topic, Super Street Fighter IV is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia in an article of its own. As the title isn't even released yet (and thus, information is still coming out) it's premature to force a merge at this stage. I've expressed fuller views on the talk page, which is where you should have kept this discussion, but you didn't like the result there, so now we're here where you can ask the other parent if it's okay... —Locke Cole • t • c 08:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, really? Now where was that consensus reached? I surely must have missed it. BTW, you keep trying to make it appear as if I'm trying to dump the information and crying out for its notability when nobody is questioning it. It's just that things don't work the way you're proposing. Things don't first get a separate article and then eventually get merged if there's nothing to say about them (thus your calling my merge "premature"). It's the other way round. The game is little more than a patch to SFIV adding a couple of new characters and moves. I say keep it as a section and if some day it reaches enough individuality, only then reverse merge into a separate article. --uKER (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge it. Not different to the degree necessary to have another article on it. --Izno (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to clarify that I nominated for deletion because until this edit in which Locke Cole copy/pasted the whole section from the SFIV article into "his article", the Super SFIV article was shamefully at loss compared to the section in the SFIV article. Currently they are in fact the same, save for the "Additional Characters" section which only reiterates things already said in the previous section, so there's nothing to merge anyway. --uKER (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To editors who may be swayed by the personal attack claiming it is "[my] article", please note the edit history of Super Street Fighter IV. I've only recently become involved, mostly because of the inappropriate merge that was performed by UKER (talk · contribs). Other than reverting the merge and moving the material back (which bloated the Street Fighter IV article), I've left editing of the article to editors more familiar with the topic. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to clarify that I nominated for deletion because until this edit in which Locke Cole copy/pasted the whole section from the SFIV article into "his article", the Super SFIV article was shamefully at loss compared to the section in the SFIV article. Currently they are in fact the same, save for the "Additional Characters" section which only reiterates things already said in the previous section, so there's nothing to merge anyway. --uKER (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Street Fighter IV. Deleting it is unnecessary since it's notable. However, it's only a re-release of SFIV and doesn't merit a separate article. Nominating it for deletion is not the right way to solve a dispute, but on the other hand, I agree with the merge.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I only voted "delete" because there wasn't really anything to merge, but technically yes, since I intend to keep the SSFIV article as a redirect, my vote should have been "merge". Changing accordingly. --uKER (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is Articles for DELETION, you should just withdraw your nomination and, if there's still a dispute, go to mediation instead.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah, I assume it was a mistake bringing up the discussion here since deletion was not what I should have proposed, but if I withdraw the nomination, we'd have to start the voting all over again. I'd rather let this go on for a while and do whatever the outcome turns out to be. --uKER (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is Articles for DELETION, you should just withdraw your nomination and, if there's still a dispute, go to mediation instead.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I only voted "delete" because there wasn't really anything to merge, but technically yes, since I intend to keep the SSFIV article as a redirect, my vote should have been "merge". Changing accordingly. --uKER (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It has a good development section referenced by reliable sources. Putting up an AfD is unessasary since it is notable. Just continue with the merge discussion. You shouldn't abuse AfD just to make a point or something. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge per nom
- Merge per my earlier proposal. I will go on the record and say an AfD was a bad way to go about this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I already did recognize it was a mistake of me to nominate for deletion, didn't I? --uKER (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just a statement Uker, not an attack upon you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (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.