Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stroyent

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. If someone really really wants the material for a merge into Strogg, let me know, but with no references whatsoever, I wouldn't advise merging. Neil ☎ 10:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stroyent

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

The article has no notability, and is therefore an in-universe repetition of plot elements from various Quake video games. It is entirely duplicative and therefore lacks encyclopedic value. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·talk 22:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stroyent is a fundamental concept of the very popular [[Quake (series)|Quake] series, in particular Quake 4 and Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. The notability of the article is self-evident given the massive popularity of the series. Xihr (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't, as notability is not inherited. For example, just because Master Chief (Halo) is notable, an article on Master Chief's toe nails would not be just because he's famous. This article needs to prove that it too is notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument. Xihr (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep: I found this article very useful for further clarification on a key and central topic for the Quake universe. User talk: Skullmush. November 26, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.228.81 (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Useful" isn't a reason to keep an unencyclopedic article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing in this article establishes real-world notability, and there is no out-of-universe information. This article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 21:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge→Strogg—The topic is intimately related to the Strogg. As Strogg recently eluded deletion and the nominator considered notability established, this merger would seem a logical by-product of that article's retention. Further, I do agree with the notions presented by those arguing for deletion that the lack of referral by secondary sources in content focused on the topic is a fatal flaw for fictional items such as this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a merger would be in order, but it would be very good for this article to assert its notability. Judgesurreal777 04:02, 3 December 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.