Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turanic Raiders

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 all. The reasons for retention seem to be "important to the game", a complaint about the nomination, and an essay the community has not endorsed. These are unconvicing reasons. Those arguments for deletion are that the information is unreferenced, in-universe, and fails to assert notability. These have not been addressed, and are convincing reasons. I am unwilling to reccommend merging unreferenced, in-universe information - this would simply be pushing the problem to another article - so can only close this as "delete". Neıl ☎ 10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turanic Raiders[edit]

in-universes article about a race from the homeworld series of games. Ridernyc (talk) 06:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- An important faction in the Homeworld games, players fight againist them and the page lists the factions units and general info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crab182 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep / Merge The information is important, but maybe not important enough to justify an article. I support merging the information into the Homeworld article or maybe make another article of minor races in Homeworld. It should be noted that I started this article and I'm a big Homeworld fan so I am probably biased. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT, no reliable secondary sources discussing the topic, no real-world significance. SharkD (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now also includes the following:

Note also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiith

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiith Somtaaw

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progenitor (Homeworld)

Since all of the above articles concern fictional races in Homeworld, it is only fair that any consensus should apply to all of them. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:V and WP:OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Wikipedia is not a guide to playing video games. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a "Races of the Homeworld Universe" article, and cut down the cruft. There is no resaon not to have basic coverage of topics in the Homeworld universe--the fact that these existing articles are overly crufty doesn't mean that there should be absolutely no coverage at all. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim per Dark Shikari. Otherwise Keep by default --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Dark Shikari we should merge all the info into a "Races of the Homeworld Universe" article. Also I don't think this info helps a person play the game, it just provides information about the game. Cpuwhiz11 (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I note that no attempt was made to maintain the quality of our coverage of the subject, nor to establish any kind of discussion about the same. There are also no signs of the nominator doing any research or making an effort to see if something else than the extreme option would be preferable. There are also no signs of consideration of what this information could be used for or what these articles might potentially become before attempting to have it declared categorically unsuitable. --Kizor 00:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That the nominator has not given this content due consideration is a baseless assumption on your part. However, in your consideration of the factors you mentioned, why do you think these articles should be kept? To what extent should Wikipedia cover the fiction of the Homeworld game series, and is it notable as fiction? Is it possible to cover these fictional elements without depending wholly on primary sources and personal analysis? Finally, why would the decision to delete be considered an extreme option? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Permission to answer this later on the 7th? --Kizor 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course. Thanks, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for showing courtesy to a fellow editor. (I wouldn't consider this unusual, but I just got through having people argue with me for asking them to not to call content they dislike "garbage". Anyway.) Wikipedia should cover the fiction in as much detail as it takes to give an adequate description of that fiction. The extent is a matter of debate, but that's still on a whole another scale than blowing all this up. The fiction of the Homeworld games is a significant part of the things, due to both peculiar plot-heavy game design and a ridiculous amount of accompanying background material. Ignoring this aspect of the games or reducing it to trivial treatment will harm our coverage of the works as a whole. As for deletion being extreme, I had assumed that to be undisputed. It's the single option that destroys the content and edit history as part of our coverage, makes no attempt of finding a more suitable form, and makes people jump through hoops to even receive an opportunity to fix the content. --Kiz o r 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand mentions is just an essay and isn't a requirement to follow when editing. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort, but from personal experience closing admins are pretty good at spotting these things themselves. Something can be non-obligatory and still be a good idea. --Kiz o r 08:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In-universe plot repetition long on original research and short on the reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability. Merging unsourced details of questionable notability doesn't solve the problem it just leaves a single deletion candidate for further down the line. Someone another (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I agree with Kizor on his assessment of the nomination, but my own research on the topic shows that it is very unlikely that any of these articles can possibly meet the Wikipedia standards. Deleting these articles would improve Wikipedia's coverage of the subject, as it would mean a shift from maintaining a lot of stub-size articles to writing actual good articles. User:Krator (t c) 19:55, 6 January 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.