Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Halo 2

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 06:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Halo 2

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Weaselriffic. This is a review of Halo 2, not an article about a controversy. Currently, it's pure original research, and laden with weasel words. Rather than a description of a groundswell of negative criticism, it's a laundry list of complaints, some of which are vague and purely aesthetic (e.g. "Other fans complained that the plot of Halo 2 was less appealing than that of Halo.")

I would suggest that it be merged into Halo 2, but that article is already a trainwreck, and this useless pile of OR and weasel words would do little to improve it. (Halo 2#Criticism needs to be improved, though.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Jadriaen 04:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Nick Y. 04:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominated and as nominated twice before. Delete this piece of garbage. Please, I'm sick of seeing it here. Brian G. Crawford 04:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, but let's calm down the language. Mangojuicetalk 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, OR, and POV. Kevin 04:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, all previous reasons, and all my recent edits on the article and talk page. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kevin's arguments. Colonel Tom 05:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Shall we see if any valid sources can be provided for any of the statements, in which case some of this material could be merged with Halo 2. Presumably there is something credible in it. Wikiquette requested. Tyrenius 06:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; this article has violated content policies literally from day one. After four months and two AfDs, it has yet to find a single reference. Time's up. Melchoir 07:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pathetic Juvenalia. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Smerge I'm sure you can cite some criticisms and Halo 2 could use them to be NPOV. Are we going to AFD this every month until it finally gets deleted? (Last one closed April 1st, one before that was 10th of February)Kotepho 14:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not a Halo 2 fan, but I like POV OR even less. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game review site, and Halo 2 is not notable for its criticisms. — Haeleth Talk 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others. Content belongs in a gaming forum, not an encyclopedia. Paddles 14:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. I added the noncompliant tag almost three months ago and the article has not improved since. Not a single source for any of the blatantly POV claims in the article. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR, POV article, WP:V. --Terence Ong 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, up repeatedley, let's just finish it DannyM 19:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subsection in the Halo 2 article is good enough. Jgamekeeper 08:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete AMIB knows his stuff, and I can't but agree that this is useless from an encyclopaedic standpoint, given that it fails numerous policies (starting with the POV title). Just zis Guy you know? 11:41, 11 May 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.