Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleaners (Max Payne) - second nom

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 Merge to Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:28Z

Cleaners (Max Payne)[edit]

Delete not notable enough in the real world. (158.125.1.113 15:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne. Not notable enough to merit its own article per WP:FICT. Walton monarchist89 16:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as per above Whilding87 17:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gorkekkingrammit! This article was kept by Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) at 14:41, 19 February 2007 (one week ago) following the first deletion discussion. The discussion as then blanked by IP user 158.125.1.113 on several occasions, before resulting in the text seen above. I have reverted the original discussion and moved this version of the nomination to the new discussion page. Please do not blank and restart deletion discussion pages, they are needed for historical purposes. -- saberwyn 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please not that this it not a opinion to keep or delete... I just want people to be aware that this article was nominated for deletion two weeks ago, kept a week ago, then the deletion discussion was blanked today. -- saberwyn 23:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Though I'm tempted to say, "keep for foul play." -- Richard Daly 02:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above (158.125.9.4 03:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 06:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the salvageable bits to Max Payne 2: The Fall of Max Payne after deleting the original research portion of the article. In any case, the subject doesn't seem substantial enough for a separate article. --Alan Au 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes the most sense. The last discussion didn't seem like it had a keep consensus to me, anyway. — brighterorange (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2007 (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.