Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.N.A.
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 Speedy Delete per author’s request (CSD#G7) after merging into AT-43. —Travistalk 03:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] U.N.A.
I don't see how this is notable, if it is notable, then my bad. but It don't seem notable. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 14:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- (full disclosure: I'm the article's author) I'd say this entry is notable as it expands on the information found in the AT-43 entry. AT-43 is an emerging tabletop wargame that is quite rapidly growing in popularity in the United States (shipping issued delayed a more widespread release back in 06/07). Much like the entry for Warhammer 40k, a similar tabletop game, it's nice to have the details and backstories of the diverse groups listed here on wikipedia. That way, novice players or the curious may be able to find more information about the game and its factions. I see how something that is new could be seen as something that is not notable, but I think it's better to be proactive information-wise, than reactive. Thanks, --Btg23 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any evidence of notability presented and the burden of proof is on those who believe the article is notable, as per WP:NOBJ. As to proactivity vs. reactivity, I'm afraid Wikipedia disagrees: WP:NTEMP. If the game gains more coverage in future the article can always be reinstated. Olaf Davis | Talk 15:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The article is briefly mentioned in the parent article of AT-43. I think that the important information can be merged into there... not a full merge. --Pmedema (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - non notable Dreamspy (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with AT-43. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with AT-43. Looking at it, I agree it's non-notable. Since I'm still learning the ropes here, I'm not sure what to do next. Can I delete the page myself since I'm the author? --Btg23 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well it needs to be merged first, so... – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 13:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dur, thanks. *g* I went ahead and merged the Therians article into that as well. It wasn't marked for deletion, but it served the same function as the U.N.A. page. I think the main AT-43 article really benefited from this. Thanks everyone! Should I just edit the two pages and take everything out? Or is there a special delete command?--Btg23 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can place {{db-g7}} on the page and it will be deleted in a few minutes. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers. Thanks again, everyone! --Btg23 (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can place {{db-g7}} on the page and it will be deleted in a few minutes. – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life) 14:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Dur, thanks. *g* I went ahead and merged the Therians article into that as well. It wasn't marked for deletion, but it served the same function as the U.N.A. page. I think the main AT-43 article really benefited from this. Thanks everyone! Should I just edit the two pages and take everything out? Or is there a special delete command?--Btg23 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2008 (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.
