Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storyline of Perfect Dark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Storyline of Perfect Dark
Unnecessary spin-off page full of fancruft. Soo 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:FICT: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis ... not solely a summary of that work's plot." Wikipedia is not a game guide. There is already a plot summary in the main article, so this is totally redundant. -- IslaySolomon | talk 05:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Completely redundant fancruft. Can be transplanted to the Perfect Dark article if necessary. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Which it isn't, since Perfect Dark is already a featured article with a summary of the story. Soo 07:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Merely a plot summary. MER-C 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete breach of WP:FICT. Madmedea 12:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, we don't need a play-by-play of the whole storyline. Trebor 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- (weak?)Keep I feel Perfect Dark deserves a longer plot summary, the main reason I made this article. I have seen articles with a simmilar amount of summary. Example Marcus Fenix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Muldoon X9 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
- Unfortunately, the existence of similar entirely in-universe plot summaries does not mean that this one should be kept. Trebor 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Compromise Ok. I got one. The summary you have is the equvilent of a summary of a summary. I think a little expansion wouldn't hurt in the main article. We could expand that ( a little) and you could delete this article, which took me a couple days to type.Muldoon X9 13:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article doesn't need any expansion of storyline, it passed an extremely rigorous Featured Article debate. You could've saved yourself "several days of typing" (not continuous, I assume) by checking the discussion on the talk page. Soo 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete You guys seem to have the odds stacked against me... And you do have some pretty good points. sigh. You win. Oh well. I'll just have to find something better to do with my time. Maybe I should get a life... Can you recommend something for me to do (on Wikipedia.)Muldoon X9 01:41, 6 February 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.
