Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jak & Daxter vehicles

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. I read a fairly strong consensus for deletion here. The argument that this is not up to snuff in terms of WP:N is valid and mentioned by several in the delete camp, whereas DGG is really the only editor who articulates a keep rationale, and it is not particularly persuasive or rooted in policy but rather more akin to personal opinion (it's not necessarily a bad point though). DGG is obviously right that AfD can be quite erratic (particularly when it comes to this kind of fictional universe stuff), but that's the process we have and the consensus on this article seems to be to delete. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jak & Daxter vehicles[edit]

I propose this article be deleted because:

The assertion of notability is not stated
There are no sources
It's too much in-universe cruft
It's listed like a game guide

Magiciandude (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced gamers' guide. Alexius08 (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree w/ nom. feydey (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim & Merge - I agree with everything the nominator said. However, the better option than deletion is to trim the article & merge it into a move general, relevant article. Jak and Daxter (series) might work. Alternatively, the characters article and this one could be combined into a "Jak and Daxter universe" article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:N; as a separate article, Jak and Daxter Vehicles would have to be notable on their own merit (i.e. talked about outside gamers playing), or at least a list of them would be. They are not, and are only relevant/useful within the context of their individual games. There's not really much content there, ThaddeusB, just a few, broad sentences would be appropriate in "Gameplay" for each of the trilogy, so a three-way-merge would probably be more work than it's worth. I removed the TitanSuit, fyi, as it was a direct copy of the manual. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:N. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced original research. Drawn Some (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nom sums it up. The major problem is the lack of sources and the questionable notability of the topic. Add stylistic issues regarding WP:WAF and WP:NOT and its clear that this shouldn't be here. Them From Space 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The compromise solution to fictional elements is combination articles like this one. It avoids the two extremes: multiple very small fansite-like articles on individual elements, and inadequate coverage of relevant material that users of an encyclopedia might reasonably look for. I have for some time now consistently urged the deletion and merging of the possible individual articles, and, hoped to see no further attempts to delete the combined ones. There is no consensus that notability outside of a game is required for elements of the game. Attempts to say so have consistently failed to be adopted as a general proposition. Thus the attempt to remove them individually by Afd--as AfD is notoriously erratic, only some will be removed--and I must admit that I consider this particular game of relatively minor importance and would support a greater brevity than for more notable games. F But the important thing is to promote a compromise consensus, and not have to devote our energy to the repeated individual attacks and defenses. There are better things to do for Wikipedia than AfD for harmless articles DGG (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG has summerized this quite well. The nominator's concerns are best met through WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dgg reason givenOo7565 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going WP:IAR and relisting this; it really can't be called a consensus to delete given the keep !votes at the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it should be deleted, DGG just said keep it because "there are better things to do for Wikipedia than AfD for harmless articles" and that is NOT a valid reason to keep an article. The next two just referred to DGG's illogical comments. Drawn Some (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliably-sourced content worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:27, 26 June 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.