- 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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Gex enemies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A fictional list of enemies that does not meet the wikipedia general notability guideline, since this list of enemies is not the topic of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unnecessary detail to a game that is not necessary for an encyclopedic overview of the game, as per WP:GAMETRIVIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. Randomran (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not game guide, and enemies of a game are not notable like characters. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:NOT#INFO. Asserts no notability either. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (organized and discriminate) and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Consistent with What Wikipedia is. As far as any other shortcuts go, also keep per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as deleting the article prevents editors from improving and maintaing Wikipedia. Plenty of editors working on it (if they have not yet been notified of this AfD, then please be sure to do so per the AfD instructions: "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Also consider notifying WikiProjects listed on the discussion page. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} ~~~~ (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} ~~~~ (for contributors or established users). You can determine the main contributors of the articles by entering the page name at Wikipedia Page History Statistics." Finally, trivia is encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Still haven't justified overriding the general notability guideline, which is central to wikipedia. Sometimes it's important to "ignore all rules", but then you'd have to make the case that this is an exception. We're not just going to discard such a central guideline on whim or fancy, let alone with some blanket justification. What makes this article so special? Randomran (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is no overriding reason to delete this article that benefits the project, the other central policies and guidelines I listed as keep reasons mean that the article should be kept. Keeping the article provides a coherent reference tool concerning a specific aspect of a notable franchise. It puts certain things in context, is clearly being worked on, and interests our readers. There is no advantage to removing this article whatsoever. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:IINFO exists for a reason, largely to keep Wikipedia maintainable. Wikipedia may have a tremendous amount of disk space, however, we have a limited supply of editors. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have an ever growing supply of editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:IINFO exists for a reason, largely to keep Wikipedia maintainable. Wikipedia may have a tremendous amount of disk space, however, we have a limited supply of editors. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is no overriding reason to delete this article that benefits the project, the other central policies and guidelines I listed as keep reasons mean that the article should be kept. Keeping the article provides a coherent reference tool concerning a specific aspect of a notable franchise. It puts certain things in context, is clearly being worked on, and interests our readers. There is no advantage to removing this article whatsoever. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Still haven't justified overriding the general notability guideline, which is central to wikipedia. Sometimes it's important to "ignore all rules", but then you'd have to make the case that this is an exception. We're not just going to discard such a central guideline on whim or fancy, let alone with some blanket justification. What makes this article so special? Randomran (talk) 00:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki or Merge and Redirect This information pertains to a narrow topic, and at its current size is largely non-crucial to said topic. Some information is useful, such as enemies involved in the plot, however, much of this information is, for all purposes, nothing more than clutter. StrategyWiki exists for a reason, it should be transwiki'd there where it would fluorish. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its excessive detail for a non-notable subject, which would be far better suited to a quick summary in gameplay sections the main game articles. Transwiki it if there's anywhere suitable, but delete it from Wikipedia. -- Sabre (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Gex enemies have not been the subject of independent coverage, it's also difficult to create this kind of list without avoiding original research.
- 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.