Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in the Star Fox series

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; the rationale for nomination was not satisfactorily addressed. east.718 at 22:35, December 19, 2007

List of locations in the Star Fox series

This is a list of locations that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is unnecessary to cover them in detail, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Unless notability can be established by multiple sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, but on a couple conditions~~ Strong keep, now that the article's been expanded upon - It's notable as being about scenes of fictional planets. HOWEVER, if that is not a viable option, merge the levels of each respective game into those game articles (such as StarFox 64's levels would then go to #Levels or #Locations). If given the chance to be expanded upon (as it's relatively brief), it could have a better purpose. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence. It will only be notable if it is brought up to our standards. The standards for fiction can be found in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). If you do not understand these at all, feel free to inquire on my talk page (though, please read them fully first). TTN (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. I have read your page over and over. You avoid having to answer any questions asked to you regarding why it is deleted, or what you consider notable. What are your standards for notability? (wading through several large articles to find a few small points isn't a pasttime for me...) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=TTN . See a similar discussion to this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in Primeval and User_talk:TTN#Deletion of Primeval episodes matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A large part of a notable series with nontrivial content. -- Masterzora (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly transwiki if someone wants it. No secondary information present to establish notability per WP:FICT. Furthermore major violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. It's hard to think of real-world information about locations in video games like this, so wikipedia shouldn't have an article about it. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The question here is whether these locations are important to the encyclopaedic discussion of the topic, or whether they would be better suited to a game guide. These games are shooters, and therefore I do not think locations are important. Perhaps the only game genre that would warrant a list of locations is the adventure game - a list of islands in Riven, for example. In those games, the locations are the game, in the same way as character lists are important for story-focused games like RPGs. In a shooter without a story, I see little need for a list like this, therefore warrants deletion per WP:GAMECRUFT. User:Krator (t c) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-transwiki-lete no apparent real-world context, criticism, or analysis, and unlikely that there ever could be such information without WP:OR, due to the rather limited scope of the subject matter <eleland/talkedits> 21:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question If i (or another wikipedia contributor) were to considerably expand on the details of each level/location/planet, would that satisfy the notability requirements of the page? As an alternate, would that then make it more suited to being on each respective game's page as a section/sub section? allow me to also state that i DO understand it needs to be brought out of an in-universe tone (wikified and made more encyclopedic), and i certainly know and understand that wikipedia is not a game guide. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained here and on your talk page, you need real world information to establish notability. They are game guide material (any way that you word them), so they would be removed from any articles. TTN (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like how the developers based the aerial dogfights in the game after the ones in Independence Day? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that pertains to the series, not these. If you have a reliable source for it, do add it to the series page. TTN (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated vote to speedy keep reason: user is nominating massive amounts of video game articles in bad faith, using sock puppets, bots, harassing others on his talk page when they confront him on this... do i really need to go on? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what did you say about another user? Do you have any proof of the accusations you are making, or are you just talking out of pure ignorance? I strongly caution you from accusing people of things that you cannot prove. Besides, there is no evidence of bad faith nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established in the primary article. Longstanding consensus holds that lists like this should be split out if they make the main article too long. Wikipedia is not paper. We have room for a logical arrangement of subject material rather than cramming it all into one page. Nomination seems a clear WP:POINT violation... nom is on the verge of being admonished by ArbCom about excessive/questionable 'merge' actions, so now is putting everything on AfD instead. --CBD 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with CBDunkerson, hopefully the arbcom will note these POINT violations. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The locations themselves need to be focus of non-trivial coverage in order to establish notability, things like development info or reliable secondary parties discussing them. Someone another (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above: gamecruft. Btw, User:RingtailedFox can you please reduce the visual pollution of your signature? Eusebeus (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The signature won't be changed, and that's not relevant to the discussion anyway. Denied. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 20:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned-up your sigs on this page. --Jack Merridew 09:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikia. SharkD (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per RingtailedFox, CBD. --Maniwar (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CBD. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this "list" is actually a transcription of a game guide and fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Star Fox franchise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:21, 17 December 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.