Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortana Letters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep Kusma (討論) 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cortana Letters

Almost completely original research, and the exchange itself is non-notable. Originally WP:PROD'ed by Skysmith; the tag was removed twice. æle ✆ 2006-06-10t20:12z

  • This article is about what was a huge influence and part of the Halo games by Bungie. Strong Keep. -LifeDeathAnime 6-10-06. 5:04 PM PST
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks - it is written in an analysis-style format better suited to a textbook.
Keep: Per lower responses.--Zxcvbnm 04:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This isn't OR. This is a summary or reasearch from the Marathon's story page and several Halo forums, but it still doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia in its current style. It could maybe be cleaned up, but I suspect it would be better as a section of another article. Ace of Sevens 05:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. A lot of the content doesn't come from the Story page. The last update to the page was written in 1999, well before anyone knew anything about Halo 2 or 3. There is no mention of the Flood, nor Gravemind, etc. in the Story page. In addition, quite a bit of the article is speculation. æle ✆ 2006-06-11t15:08z
  • Ok, gotta agree with Zxcvbnm. Transwiki it or merge it. -007bond 05:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've crossed out your other vote, assuming you want this to take precedence. æle ✆ 2006-06-11t15:08z

*Transwiki or merge, I don't mind. So long as the analyses and relevant content can remain.Gazdakka 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep It needs to be cleaned up and references displayed more clearly, but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. GWatson • TALK 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment to those proposing a transwiki to Wikibooks: Wikibooks is not for "primary research in any field — Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, et cetera." If it is agreed that this article is original research, it can't be placed on Wikibooks. æle ✆ 2006-06-11t22:46z
    • Comment it was said before that this article is not primary research, but an amalgamation of various sources which had analyzed the letters.--Zxcvbnm 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright then. Keep or merge if it can't be Transwiki'd. I stand by the earlier "so long as the analyses and relevant content can remain" garb.Gazdakka 07:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh dear God. Delete as almost incomprehensible original-research fancruft. No trans-wiki'ing, just oblivion. --Calton | Talk 04:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, now the thing makes sense. Unfortunately, it's now clear that it's just a stealth marketing stunt, and fit for the bit bucket because it's fancruft, not gibberish. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Halo (video game series) & transwiki annotation (not the letters themselves, those are works covered by copyright) to WikiBooks, where near incomprehensible original research goes to die. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 07:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix/Keep the Cortana Letters are of immense importance to the Halo and Marathon communities, and thus I'd hate to see them disappear entirely. Likely, this article just needs to be fixed. Original research ruining it? We'll get rid of it. Too textbook? Let's turn it into an article instead. Forcing a Keep/Delete/Merge just seems like an avoidance of the underlying issue- regardless of where it goes, this article has to be fixed before it can be sent anywhere. Fix it first, then talk about what we do with it once it's clear what should really stay. As part of the Halowiki project, I'd be willing to 'adopt' this one if necessary. Gspawn 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Addendum I've put my fix on the article. It needs work, of course, but one quick session of editing has the article looking very keep-able. In my opinion, anyway. Fancruft is almost all gone, it's now an article instead of a textbook entry, etc. Hopefully we can wrap up this discussion and move to working on the article? Unless I'm totally off-base and someone feels like a reversion, of course, but I think this is definately a massive improvement. Gspawn 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In what way, shape, or form is this "of immense importance to the Halo and Marathon communities"? And, even assuming it is, why is it of the slightest importance or interest to anyone OUTSIDE the "Halo and Marathon communities"? --Calton | Talk 01:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fix/ Strong Keep Once again, Calton's elitist opinions cloud his judgement. This entry is of IMMENSE importance to the Halo community, and I can assure you, there are hundreds of thousands if not over a million of them. TruthCrusader 06:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Ah, more fact-free spittle from the inaptly named TruthCrusader. So, once again, this "elitist" (and what the hell IS that supposed to mean or imply?) asks the simple question, "In what way, shape, or form is this 'of IMMENSE (because ALL-CAPS always add meaning) importance to the Halo and Marathon communities'? If it's so IMMENSE, then it's a claim that you should be able to back up with a modicum of evidence -- or is basic adherence to, say WP:CITE and/or WP:Reliable sources the mark of an elitist. --Calton | Talk 07:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Looks like reasonable reporting and analysis of an event in the development of Halo. - CNichols 22:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TruthCrusader and CNichols. I would suggest that Calton review WP:AGF and WP:Civil as a preamble to citing various policy pages and attacking users who express opposing opinions. --JJay 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And I would suggest you use at least a fig leaf of a justification for singling me out while ignoring the ranting of User:TruthCrusader. I would suggest you pay the slightest bit of attention to the actual discussion instead misrepresenting my obvious questions as attacks. I would suggest, since you claim to be agreeing with TruthCrusader, you demonstrate that you understand what you're agreeing to by ANSWERING the very simple question of why "[t]his entry is of IMMENSE importance to the Halo and Marathon communities", and why such pointless eye-glazing fancruft (assuming that it really is of IMMENSE importance to the Halo and Marathon communities) belongs in a general-interest encyclopedia? --Calton | Talk 07:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why did I single you out? I guess because of your generally belligerent tone (once again demonstrated with your newest comment), lines like: "more fact-free spittle from the inaptly named TruthCrusader", and hostile vocabulary ("fit for the bit bucket", "gibberish", "ranting", "pointless eye-glazing", etc.). These discussions are not meant to be outlets for aggression. There is also no requirement for the kind of gutter brawling that is all too often demonstrated on AfD. Language and tone are important in maintaining a certain minimum level of decorum. Having said that, I would also ask TruthCrusader to take it down a notch as well in future comments. --JJay 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GWatson. The information here is useful and necessary, especially to anyone looking into the history of the Halo/Marathon/or Bungie. ArgentiumOutlaw 05:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Merge An interesting piece of information, but would not be harmed by attaching to another page. Much less obscure (IMO) than many things on Wikipedia. A general purpose encylopedia should not exclude information, but rather cover everything it can. Tru7h343 20:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So what's the consensus? Are we keeping it or not? -007bond 06:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks to me like most people say keep. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
So we can remove the deletion tag on the actual page and delete this page? -007bond 07:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait for this discussion to be closed by an Admin or other third pary. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 07:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
How do we alert an administrator to this? -007bond 09:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, someone will probably close this AfD in a couple of days. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 09:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Importance: For those who missed it, my new intro says a major part: The Cortana Letters were the first publicly released Halo material. Predating Halo by several years and two ports. They also demonstrate Bungie's strong ties to their community, they may have been a relatively early if very primitive ARG (see talk)... how about the note that certain lines from the Halo 3 announcement trailer are directly taken from the Cortana letters? I could go on if you want, but most of this is already in the article now. 69.176.41.195 17:19, 15 June 2006 (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.