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 to delete (or merge). The default is that the article is kept. A possible solution would be to move up to an intermediate supertopic along the lines of
Locations in Halo, and build out other relevant content around it.
bd2412T03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep Nom makes a gamecruft claim while presenting absolutely no evidence of such. Purely an
WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. As the creator of the article, I checked to see if it passed
WP:GNG before creating it, and there are other articles with similar precedent such as
Dust II, which has similar significance in Counter Strike as Blood Gulch does in Halo. There is much actual gamecruft in need of cleanup, though.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)06:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That's pure
WP:IDHT. There was crystal clear consensus at
WT:VG that you shouldn't create these articles because they consist of (1) a lede that contains puffery claims not supported by the text, (2) a basic gamecruft description of the stage that is of no interest to anyone besides diehard Halo fans, and (3) a weak reception section that simply consists of every trivial mention. There's also absolutely no indication in the article that Blood Gulch had the same impact as
Dust II, which actually has meaningful commentary that demonstrates its significance.
JOEBRO6414:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
"Trivial mention" seems to be a personal opinion on your part. The cited sources are fully discussing the map and they have the map's name in the title of their article. They are not trivial in the slightest. Furthermore, Dust II's reception section is the same size, if you exclude the "Impact and legacy" section that is mostly discussing its ingame changes over the years.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)04:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I am also not really sure what you mean by "meaningful commentary" in the Dust II article as opposed to the commentary in Blood Gulch. Can you give an example of what exactly that would entail? I think there is plenty in the latter that demonstrates that it's one of the series's most famous maps.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
series article as a recurring element or delete. Doesn't need more than two sentences based on the current sourcing, which is not substantive. Joebro's assessment of the gamecruft is spot on. czar02:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
The difference between this article and
Dust II is that Dust II actually has sources that demonstrate its nobility; these just boil down to "this is the best Halo level" without any meaningful commentary.
JOEBRO6400:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)reply
a mention is notability, period—what? That is not how notability works. Notability is actual, detailed coverage of the subject, not every minuscule mention. I have looked at the references, and they all repeat the same bland opinions and don't support the puffery assertions made in the lede.
JOEBRO6401:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The gamesradar piece is an entire article worth of commentary about the map. The Good Game piece is several paragraphs. Not all of them are massive mentions, but there is enough to say that it's notable. Per
WP:BONSAI, an article doesn't need to be massive to be suitable for inclusion, though the article is already a fair bit larger than a stub.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Ehhh I gotta side with Joebro here. The sourcing here is pretty weak. Those Good Game “paragraphs” are extremely short and say little of substance. Same with some of the others, like the Engadget one. And with only six sources present in total, and so many brief mentions, a separate article is just not warranted. It’s better represented as part of its respective game(s).
Sergecross73msg me19:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Firstly, "hav[ing] no limit to the articles we can keep" has absolutely nothing to do with the fact this article does not meet
WP:N. Secondly, I have no idea how you can't see consensus in the discussion. There was clearly a large majority of users who disagreed with Zxcvbnm's VG location articles like this existing because their sourcing is extremely weak; this is by no means an exception.
JOEBRO6420:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge. What's in the article is basically all there ever likely could be for the subject. The two sources for satisfying GNG are the Edge article and Australian Broadcasting Corp feature; the others are minor mentions. As such I think there's a reasonable argument it can barely scrape by GNG, but we're left with an article that really as Czar mentions, merits at most one or two lines in another article. There's no indication of enduring importance, and there's definitely less here than Dust II (which I don't really think successfully argues its case as a separate article either.) I've never come across significant development info that could beef this up, for example, that wouldn't be better served in a larger topic.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk00:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. There's already plenty of RSes on the page that are specifically about this one level. See also
World 1-1,
Green Hill Zone etc.
WP:GAMECRUFT does not forbid articles about specific video game levels, and the "puffery" that the nominator mentions can simply be removed without deleting the whole article.
Phediuk (
talk)
23:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Friendly merge, with keep preferred over effective deletion. By "friendly" I mean "all of the existing content should be kept as passing
WP:GNG", rather than merges that are really "stick in a single sentence into the target article." I don't know if the
Halo series article is the right target since having a "notable levels" section seems jarring there, but if some other target could be found ("Multiplayer Halo?"), then making it a section of a larger article would be fine. That said, if the franchise article doesn't want this and no other target can be found, keep would be better than deletion, as this material passes GNG; just possible it'd be better as a section rather than a stand-alone article.
SnowFire (
talk)
14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)reply
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.