Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleaners (Max Payne)

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 - Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaners (Max Payne)

Cleaners (Max Payne) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete or Merge Perhaps a notable antagonist in the Max Payne 2 game, it does not deserve its own article; not notable enough in the real world. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Appears to be important element within the game, as one of the primary protagonist groups. Would support a merge, although the size of the Max Payne 2 article is pretty solid, so I would also be happy keeping this as a split out section. -- saberwyn 21:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said in the nomination, they are one of the main antagonists, but they don't deserve their own article; it's not notable enough in the real world and they only appear in one game. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep, per User:Klptyzm saberwyn . Mathmo ^Talk 06:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per me?? Did you even read what I've written? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • lol, sorry! That has got to be the craziest error I've ever made... must have had a minor brain fade. Fixed now. Mathmo ^Talk 15:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Probably my momentary confusion came from the fact you would even support merging yourself (which is kinda an indirect vote for keeping, for now at least). And that you even acknowledged yourself that they are "one of the main antagonists". Mathmo ^Talk 15:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • • Well, just the fact that its an antagonist does not merit separate article creation; if that did merit separate article creation, thousands of articles would need to be created. Do you see where I'm going with this? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
            • So you want this article deleted on the basis Wikipedia might perhaps end up with thousands of articles if it isn't?? And why is that a problem? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. My view if people want to write and read this much stuff then let them, and what you said of merging doesn't seem like a good idea. Because for readability we want keep articles from getting extremely long. Mathmo ^Talk 06:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
              • • Yeah, apparently, you didn't see where I was going with that. Perhaps it was my fault for wording it in such a fashion. It was basically another statement supporting the fact that it's still not significant enough to have a page; I'm basically trying to say that lots of unnecessary pages would need to be created if this one is allowed to stay. For instance, Roy Knife is a main antagonist from the "Gun.Smoke" video game; we don't know 2 cents about him other than his name, so, just because he's a "main antagonist," he deserves his own article? Maybe I should have stated that in my above comment. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • • Also, just because Wikipedia encourages addition of information doesn't mean to make an article about everything. Wikipedia would be extremely, and unnecessarily, long if that were true. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 06:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • If not even two cents is known about "Roy Knife" then it shouldn't be created because you could barely squeeze a stub out of it. This article however is well beyond stub status. Mathmo ^Talk 07:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • Yeah, you still don't understand where I'm going with this. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
                          • • The article itself says "not much is known about the organization." Also, there is a high possibility that all of this is original research anyways. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR and the duck test. If it seems like OR, and it doesn't have references supplied by the original editors, it almost certainly is OR. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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.