Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robots in Deus Ex

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robots in Deus Ex

Unsourced and unsourceable list of fictional objects, lacking in real-world context and commentary. No article would benefit from a merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 08:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 08:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as said in policy, information that can be easily verified by an average adult, doesn't need extra sourcing. All information is taken from the game, where it is present both visually and in text. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• comment I agree with CP/M that verifiability is not an issue here. — brighterorange (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- No reason to Delete, perfectly legitimate article. There are plenty of similarly fictional articles on Wikipedia and it is both Notable and Interesting for millions of gamers. --Hibernian 15:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Neither of the above keep comments address the lack of real-world content and the lack of the possibility of real-world content. This cannot ever be anything but paraphrasing some minor text in-game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia is not paper. It's a powerful set of multiple server farms, constantly expanding, and able to hold far more than the editors can create. Deus Ex is a real-world game, one of the most popular in the genre, one of the cult cyberpunk games, one which elements are frequently referred to in speech among computer games players. To avoid bloating the Deus Ex article, information about bots was put into a separate page. It is not a one-user page; significant interest from multiple editors keeps it improving. It has a log way to go yet, including only robots in one game, but it does improves and expands, and today is only a fraction of what it will be in the future. And, despite that, even today that article is not a stub, but a good overview of representation of robotics in Deus Ex. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not paper, but neither is it a project to abridge every single piece of text ever. This article isn't about Deus Ex in the real world, but instead extremely minor elements of the fictional world that appears in those two games. This is nothing more than plot summary (fails WP:NOT), is additionally trivial plot summary of zero interest to anyone but hard-core Deus Ex fans who will already know where to get the info anyway (fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia), and cannot be written from anything but an in-universe perspective due to the total lack of commentary outside of the source work (fails WP:WAF and cannot be cleaned up to work with that). If it ever becomes a "description of robotics in Deus Ex", it will be pure original research, because nobody has ever written a non-trivial work in a reliable source about robotics in Deus Ex. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per MiB's nom and additional comments. Wickethewok 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Deus Ex is one of the most famous CRPGs and one of well known cyberpunk works today. The article fits the policies, and the topic has interest outside fans. as it's just a split-off part of Deus Ex article. Did you already get rid of all individual articles about every minor pokemon? If not, better attend them - this is an article merging numerous units, and potentially in two games. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  Is there a single word of this article that isn't directly sourced to observation of the subject (in this case, Deus Ex and Deus Ex: Invisible War)? If not, it flunks WP:V and WP:NOR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  Sure. Quoting: "In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources". Since the article makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, and is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge (and, I'd add, here it is verifiable even by a child), it satisfies the policies.

  So you're admitting that it's nothing more than abridging the source works, something called out in WP:NOT (not a repository of source material or plot summaries). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  Admitting? Nope. I'm just quoting the policy - it confirms that this article is OK. No speculations, just a separated section for Deus Ex with pure facts. It's not just source material, it's well condensed and concentrated info. Do you suggest to merge it back into Deus Ex? This will bloat it. Del? It will be not a bit different, because interesting and relevant info will get its way there anyway. So let's just keep things as they are.

  I suggest we delete it, because it serves noone for Wikipedia to be the only source describing these fictional objects save for the work in which they appear. It's not info, it's story, and Wikipedia is not the place to retell other people's stories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  Whatever you want it to be, it is what it is. It is information about robots in a game, which is far more that a story. Furthermore, in a quite influental in CRPG world game. So it's interesting, verifiable information, and the number of editors confirms that it serves many. There's no need to remind that you suggest to delete it; have you ever suggested not to delete something? Your userpage clearly states that you are an extremist deletionist, aimed at fiction-related information, and specifically that you hate whatever you define as cruft. But it is your personal position, one that policies don't agree with. --CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  The game is influential. Every single minor aspect of this game is not necessarily influential, and you've made no case that this aspect is influential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  It is not famous, but, as a part of well-known game, has significance to warrant interest. We could debate over this for a year or two, or maybe for 30 or 50 years if we stand on the positions. However, I'll raise another question.

  What purpose would deletion of this article serve?

  Deletion of non-neutral articles saves WP from bias. Deletion of non-verifiable or pure OR articles saves it from being false. Deletion of vanity pages saves it from becoming an advertising site or a soapbox. Stop here. It doesn't mean we should delete everything. Deletion of FAs would do only harm. Deletion of GA as well. Deletion of articles which do not harm Wikipedia would also serve no purpose for us and harm WP.

  So, respond to the question above, or, repeating, what purpose would this deletion serve? It's not like a typical deletion candidate. It isn't a biased, non-verifiable, vanity or original research article. It is an article like many others, fitting well into schemes adopted long ago by most editors. So? CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  The burden lies on you to find non-trivial published works that show this interest. Deleting this article discourages people from misusing this project to describe fictional worlds without reference to the real one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  The reviews of Deus Ex are quite numerous. Use Google. This game used to get very high ratings.

  But you didn't answer my question. I asked what purpose would this deletion serve. Not what personal preference of a few users would it satisfy, or how many users it would discourage from editing Wikipedia.

  If you haven't checked my user page, I am a military engineer, so let me ask the question I'm most used to - how would it help? How would this deletion help the world? How would it help Wikipedia get an edge over other encyclopedias? How would it help anyone?

  CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  Please find a non-trivial third-party work about robots in Deus Ex.

  As for why we shouldn't have articles like this, I suggest reading WP:WAF#What's wrong with an in-universe perspective?. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  Why would I seek it? There's a lot of articles about topics with no works specifically about them - in fact, we wouldn't need Wikipedia if it covered only subjects already well covered outside of it. As said above, we don't need a special work for everything, since the subject is obviously interesting to >1000 people and the article contains verifiable material. Furthermore, it is not written from in-universe unlike you state. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is typical behavior from A Man in Black. As some one has already mentioned, he is just trying to set a precedent with this deletion with his ultimate intention being the removal of all Deus Ex related pages aside from the main game page. Even with his specious and illogical arguments this is obviously his one and only intent (he has already deleted the 'Sihouette' page without so much as a vote).
  
  As has already been said, the robots of Deus Ex are much more important to its gameplay and story than most other videogames. They are an interesting combination of traditional first-person shooter enemy and game weapon, and as such deserve mention just as much space as other character and weapons pages do. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  The Silhouette page was deleted after being prodded for five days. As for the rest, the fact that Deus Ex is interesting or important or whatever is reason for there to be an article on the game itself, not every single object, character, and concept appearing in that game. Currently, we are up above two dozen articles devoted to two games, and this ridiculously high level of detail is not appropriate for this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems very likely to me that you didn't waste a moment after the time ran out on the prod to delete the offending article. There certainly wasn't nearly the same amount of discussion for that page as ther has been for these. That aside I agree with the other assertions so far. This page does not deserve deletion, but the Deus Ex pages do need reorganization. -- Grandpafootsoldier 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I would think that would be up to the editors of the project, and not you alone. Policy is very sketchy at best on this matter. And as stated above, there is nothing in the policy against articles like this. Havok (T/C/c) 06:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment MiB has a knack for assuming he is the enforcer of wikipedia policy and scope, particularly in areas which are currently in debate or do not, in fact, exist as actual policy. While I appreciate some of his efforts to point out certain articles which need work, he has repeatedly and consistently crossed the line between being "bold" and attempting to force his narrow view of things on everyone else. I was going to phrase the latter part differently, but I didn't want to Godwin the discussion. -- Y|yukichigai 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  Have we ever interacted before? I find it odd that a user with whom I have never spoken suddenly knows all about what I have a "knack" for. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  This is Wikipedia; I can look at everything you've ever said or done on the site without having to interact. As discussion of some of the more controversial edits began to gather steam I decided to "research" you, as it were. -- Y|yukichigai 19:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  Then please contain your criticism of my conduct in general to relevant venues, not an ongoing AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  There isn't any "project" working on these articles, and WP:CVG specifically discourages making overdetailed articles on fictional subjects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  Despite there is no formal structure, there still is a consistent group of people working on related articles. However, probably we really should create a Wikiproject, since WP:CVG covers too wide range, not enabling enough focus. We'll discuss it, I think, but not here. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 19:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  I urge you to adopt the outlook and focus of a project like WP:WPFF, as opposed to the Halo or WarCraft Wikiprojects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment I'd like to respond to that by pointing out that WP:CVG specifies guidelines, not policy. While we have not made an individual project page as of yet, it would appear that the consensus of Deus Ex (and related) editors is to reject many of the guidelines put forth, which we are welcome to do under Wikipedia policy. -- Y|yukichigai 19:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Right now, I don't see a specific policy this article violates. I do agree with Black's position, which I'm assuming based on previous actions, that the Deus Ex articles need to be condensed and cleaned up. Deus Ex is an important game as far as CVG articles go, but there are almost 40 articles based only 2 pieces of fiction. Many of those are those articles are rife with fan speculation and other cruft, but that's a matter of cleanup rather than violation of WP policy. Mitaphane _talk 05:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Havok (T/C/c) 06:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, saves having to make separate articles for each type of robot. Kappa 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Too complex for being non-noteable. Probably watch developement. User:Yy-bo 20:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Probably should be cleaned up a bit though, or in a worst case scenario should be merged with an existing article. Information is definitely not non-notable, and should be kept. -- Y|yukichigai 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment With all this debating about the rules of what is and isn't allowed in Wikipedia, might I draw your attention to a less often cited Policy... Wikipedia:Ignore all rules,... enough said. (A Man In Black might also want to look at the last link in the See also section there). --Hibernian 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  Cyde Weys wrote a relevant essay about citing WP:DICK. And, frankly, this isn't bland adherance to the rules to the detriment of the encyclopedia. I really don't think this belongs here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. You're kidding me. You've GOT to be kidding me. A "Cleaner bot" is somehow a notable entry in an encyclopedia?!? If it isn't worthy of a mention in Deus Ex itself, it isn't worthy of a mention anywhere. We're here to write an encyclopedia, folks, not AwesomeFreeFansiteHostOpedia. Garrett^Talk 00:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. Combination 11:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with nom and the above. Eusebeus 12:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into character list. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:45, 11 September 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.