Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroid Prime (creature)
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 Delete. Jreferee t/c 05:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Metroid Prime (creature)
The article was merged to Universe of the Metroid series because of its lack of individual notability. The conversation went on for a month, and after that it was merged. Now, someone has unilaterally re-created the article, and there is no expectation that it will be any more notable than before. It is just a regurgitation of the plot of the Metroid Prime games as told in an unencyclopedic in universe perspective, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Change it back to a redirect. There's no need for an AfD discussion. If it doesn't stay as a redirect, go through dispute resolution. Corvus cornix 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, this time it should stay gone. If a month long discussion wasn't official enough, this will be. Judgesurreal777 20:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is no dispute, the articles fate was discussed for a month and someone did their own thing, and so I would like a more official resolution. Are there any arguments as to why it should be kept? Judgesurreal777 12:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if a person is reverting to their version, it is a dispute (even if it's against consensus). The correct course of action is to revert to the redirect and get it protected. Will (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- But there is no dispute, they simply recreated the article; I have not tried to revert it or make him do so. Since there is a question of notability, this is the appropriate forum to address it. Judgesurreal777 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, the correct place is the talk page or WikiProject. Will (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the third time, there is no dispute, there is only a nomination for deletion. Any thoughts on the articles notability? Judgesurreal777 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the third time, there is a dispute. Reading the merge discussion, there is a clear consensus to merge Metroid Prime with Dark Samus and not into the Universe page. In actual fact, the only mention besides the merge proposal to merge the Prime/DS articles anywhere but themselves was by an IP, and that was into the article Phazon. Therefore, your claim of a consensus is invalid. So it's an editing dispute. Deletion is not an acceptable way to end a dispute. Will (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- THERE IS NO DISPUTE! The person who recreated the article, the person I am supposed to be disputing with, AGREES that the article should be gotten ride of, aka DELETED, because it lacks notability, and I imagine he will way in soon in favor of deletion. Now, lets discuss the article and its merits. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the third time, there is a dispute. Reading the merge discussion, there is a clear consensus to merge Metroid Prime with Dark Samus and not into the Universe page. In actual fact, the only mention besides the merge proposal to merge the Prime/DS articles anywhere but themselves was by an IP, and that was into the article Phazon. Therefore, your claim of a consensus is invalid. So it's an editing dispute. Deletion is not an acceptable way to end a dispute. Will (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- For the third time, there is no dispute, there is only a nomination for deletion. Any thoughts on the articles notability? Judgesurreal777 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, the correct place is the talk page or WikiProject. Will (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- But there is no dispute, they simply recreated the article; I have not tried to revert it or make him do so. Since there is a question of notability, this is the appropriate forum to address it. Judgesurreal777 18:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, if a person is reverting to their version, it is a dispute (even if it's against consensus). The correct course of action is to revert to the redirect and get it protected. Will (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep, this is a moot discussion As far as I am concerned, this is a totally moot discussion because the original merge discussion was from Dark Samus -> Metroid Prime (creature), not Metroid Prime (creature) -> Universe of the Metroid series. There is currently no dispute, because it ended several days ago on its own. In a nutshell: This discussion is moot because the nom is no longer valid, as the discussion ended days ago and the merge described in the nom is not the merge that was actually being discussed. Side note: AFD is for deletion request only, and there is no reason for this article to be deleted, as this is not the place for dispute resolution. Why don't you take the argument between you and that user to the Mediation Cabal? They are quite helpful in things like this. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong, the merger of Dark Samus and Metroid Prime (creature) was one of several possible mergers discussed. And agains, there is no dispute between me or anyone else. The article lacks notability and should be deleted and redirected to the Metroid (series) article. Judgesurreal777 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, according to policy, you are supposed to put a notability issue tag on the page, wait one month, and then nom it for deletion if it still isn't notable? Besides, I just read WP:N, and the article seems notable to me. It meets all five of the general notability criteria. Are you sure this isn't a deletion based your views? I would recommend reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 00:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)- I think the argument here is criteria #4: sources. The article itself has only one cite, and all the info in the article, while direct from the games, very much toes the line with WP:FICTION, as the creature Metroid Prime has received little to no "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" except maybe forums with people complaining how hard he is to kill. As for the month long policy, it was about four days from that when the deletion review started, although a merge and recreation kind of messed with the timing there. Arrowned 01:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- And there was a discussion of its merging into the Metroid series article for over a month. Judgesurreal777 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think the argument here is criteria #4: sources. The article itself has only one cite, and all the info in the article, while direct from the games, very much toes the line with WP:FICTION, as the creature Metroid Prime has received little to no "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" except maybe forums with people complaining how hard he is to kill. As for the month long policy, it was about four days from that when the deletion review started, although a merge and recreation kind of messed with the timing there. Arrowned 01:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, unless information is already in Universe of the Metroid series, in that case, delete and replace with redirect -- A screw-up on my part, I neglected to read the page carefully, and looked at the Universe of the Metroid series for my argument that it meets all five of the requirements without realizing it (sorry). Anyway, if the information has already been merged, delete the article so the history is cleared, and then put a redirect there. If it hasn't yet been merged, it should be merged, then deleted, then replaced with a redirect. However, I would like to see what the user who restored it has to say. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Links•Sign) 03:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's cool; his name is User:Zxcvbnm Judgesurreal777 13:52, 3 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.
