The result was No consensus — I can't close a discussion as "weak delete", but I would note that this totally fails notability guidelines. The most compelling argument on the "Keep" side is the assertion that it can be cleaned up. I would strongly suggest that users work on this aspect, and pronto, because articles cannot persist indefinitely on such a basis. In addition arguments like "gamecruft", "lots of things link to this" and "but this article is the same as it too" are not compelling, and add nothing. Clean it up, or I reckon the next discussion will be a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemo ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 4 November 2007
While the reference template have been recently added, it still appears as if it is cruft. Even if the template has been placed recently, it has still failed notability, as only players and readers of the series would be interested.
While the books do exist in hard copy, there are no references to justify keeping the article for it.
Seeing as how the article is very large in the first place also (127 KB) and its contents, it can be assumed that it is not notable to the real world. IAmSasori 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply