Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The matrix online (story)

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. Singu larity 08:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The matrix online (story)

A chapter-by-chapter plot summary of the online game The Matrix Online. While the game itself seems to be notable, this seems to be a overly long summary that falls under Wikipedia is a not an archive of plot summaries. I'd suggest a merge to a plot sub-section of The Matrix Online, but compressing this article to an acceptable length would essentially amount starting from scratch. Also, prod declined by author. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, for the reasons listed above Bfigura ^(talk) 02:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No merge is necessary, this is just overwrought crufty junk. JuJube (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all for including plot synopses, even somewhat detailed ones, but not as the sole topic of an article, at least with regards to a product that is not considered classic literature. On the off chance this is kept, the article needs to be renamed with correct capitalization. 23skidoo (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a fancrufty personal essay. --Dawn bard (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. Reagrds, Eusebeus (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:ATA is an essay we are free to ignore; WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Therefore even using "per nom" may be valid as the person above may have said it just as you might have, and you want to add your weight to the consensus, so to speak.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom" just seems like a vote. In a discussion, participants should offer something new. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Nominations vary considerably. In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient.
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 16:00, 9 April 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.