Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitman 5

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 was Redirect to Hitman (series). PeaceNT 16:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitman 5

Hitman 5 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

violates WP:CRYSTAL, not enough info for even a stub Chris! ct 02:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete The entire article relies on one announcement made in January 2007 and even then the mention of the game is trivial. Definitely violates the crystal ball policy. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 02:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect To the Hitman article. There is already a mention of it on that page. Until there is more information to bring it out of the depths of Madame Cruft's Crystal Ball, it should stay redirected. i said 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Redir per I.--SarekOfVulcan 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, incorrect nomination. Properly sourced = not crystal. --MrStalker talk 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Hitman, that's it. BASE101() 19:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If we delete this article we will eventually have to remake it once we get more information, but as it stands now, it is effectively useless and tells you nothing you can't find in the hitman (series) page.Father Time89 20:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
So then why not just redirect it (Since it would in fact be a legitimate search term) and unredirect it when we have more information? i said 20:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Article has no content. ("Hitman 5 = 5th Hitman" is not content.) Brianlucas 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Redir makes the most sense IMO, since the title has been confirmed, so there will be an article eventually. Once there' more info just turn it back into it's own article, as was suggested above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.87.83 (talk) 15:00, 8 October 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.