Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Halo 2 (second nomination)

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. It's clear that there is not a consensus to delete, but there seems to be no consensus on what else to do, so I shall do nothing. -Splash^talk 18:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Halo 2

This is totally unreasonable for the following reasons:

• There was widespread deletion support in the last nomination
• With that said, almost none of the article's problems appeared to have been fixed
• Article isn't notable enough for worthiness, and almost nobody talks about Halo 2's criticism
• It is perfectly logical to merge this content with Halo 2 —This unsigned comment was added by NicAgent (talk • contribs) .

• If it is logical to merge, why not do it? Johnleemk | Talk 18:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. Brian G. Crawford, the so-called "Nancy Grace of AfD" 19:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge to Halo 2. Eivind^t@c 19:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge to Halo 2. This has been tagged for cleanup for a while and I am not sure how it could be rehabilitated. I'm sure lots of people criticized Halo 2 though and it could be sourced. I'm just not sure if we really need it. kotepho 19:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge to Halo 2 per nom. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 20:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above, though the Halo 2 article is already pretty long, but I'm sure the criticisms could be pared down. -Dawson 21:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Article survived AfD last month. Nom is arguing for a merge, which is not the role of AfD. It is the role of the article talk page and that is where this discussion should be taking place. -- JJay 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge: this belongs as part of Halo 2...no good rationale has been provided for keeping it seperate. Hello world, do you know who i am? I am me!!!! 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 22:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a legitimate fork to me, the Halo 2 article is awfully long. What's so terribly wrong with having this, and having it separate? Grandmasterka 23:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Grandmasterka. Seano1 01:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete*This article has no learning value and it is basically a group of people's opinion of the game. If they didn't like the game then they didn't have to play it. Their is no reason to post an article on an encyclopedia website to display dissatifaction with a videogame. The article has no learning value relating to the topic of Halo 2.
• Merge per eivind ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand why this article is being nominated for deletion. While it does contain some obvious flaws, it could be corrected rather than removed. The person or person(s) criticizing that the article isn't the way it should be in their eyes could simply fix it themselves. Furthermore, there are always two sides to an issue. Games are not perfect and if people have reasonable gripes over certain factual problems then they should be known. Many other articles mention what people didn't like about something, such as critics of a movie. Why should this be any different? I agree with Grandmasterka too. 206.248.71.155 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Kiwi

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.