Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground Control series

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. I consider the initial rationale for deletion to have been fully rebutted; however, the later delete !votes focused on the series' (as a group) failure to pass WP:LISTN and WP:N. I think that consensus was reached that it did not. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ground Control series

Ground Control series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub is not written like an advertisement; it is advertisements that are usually written like this stub! The whole foundation of this stub is based on weasel words and peacock terms that merely boast this series of video games while neither this article nor any other of the three Ground Control articles have supplied a shred of evidence that this game is ever well-received. In fact my Bing searches suggest otherwise. Fleet Command (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, but the individual game articles should include the sequels as more than just "See also" links. - Jorgath (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, Disclosure: I own and have played the original Ground Control game, and while I certainly enjoyed it, I never bought the sequels and never heard very much about how popular it was. Good, yes; popular, no. - Jorgath (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Keep It's a list of a small number of interrelated and apparently notable, commercially published games. Weasel and peacock can be changed through editing, per WP:ATD, and do not constitute a policy-based reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Complete violation of WP:NOTADVERT is more than enough a reason to delete a piece of stub. And you talk as if the problem is one or two sentences amongst a very good article. That is not the case. The entire stub is written like an advert; every single line of it. See Also sections and/or a navbox serve this purpose. Fleet Command (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Article quality doesn't relate to notability. I deleted the unsourced "hypey" promotional material by the way, so now it's down to 1 sentence. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks. But I think "Article quality doesn't relate to notability" is a theory and does not necessarily correspond facts and realities. As you you say, the article is now down to one sentence and now fits the bill for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A3. But I guess nothing good comes out of beating the dead horse. So, cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, bad phrasing. WP:GNG does not say anything about present article quality; it is about the topic. I know there is this whole debate on WP:BEFORE and on articles being required to not only have sources in principle, but also include them on the page. But the topic doesn't become less or more notable just because we edit the page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Much appreciated. Though my nomination is not about notability at all. (But I stand corrected: I realize that NRVE does not stands for "no reliable verifiable evidence". My mistake.) Notability is just guideline, but WP:NOT is a founding pillar. Fleet Command (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see. Yes, you are right in that WP:NOT is crucial. But the thing is that it is possible to write an unacceptable article (like advertisement) on a notable subject. So WP:GNG may conclude the subject is notable but WP:NOT may conclude the article is presented in an unacceptable way. Hence AfD is typically about WP:GNG, because one could have just removed the promotional material under WP:NOT and WP:BURDEN leaving a stub. So I guess that's why I wasn't sure what you meant. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Er... merge with Ubisoft Massive, anyone? Fleet Command (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• A quick search shows that the games themselves pass WP:GNG. Not sure this passes WP:LISTN as a stand-alone list. Then again it's arguable if any smaller game lists do. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Delete I have zero doubts about the notability of the games themselves, but series articles like this are far better suited for larger series and franchises which actually need the space. There was an expansion pack and a sequel, hardly a group which needs a collective article, this is just an additional wrapper. Someoneanother 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It's good to keep connections between related things. I personally can't speak to notability of the games. If the games are notable, and even those wanting to delete the article think they are, the overall series is at least as notable--and if notability is borderline, we'd do better to combine the individual articles here under the series title, which is what we usually do for minor works. If the works were totally unrelated, and the series is merely what librarians call a "publisher's series" then the serial nature might be merely nominal and could be ignored, but it is clear from the 3 articles that the plot is continuous and related, so it's a true series in every possible sense of the word. I think in fact the article should be expanded to give some indication of the relationships, but even if it is not, it can be thought of a disam page. I see no reason why the fact that its a small series means it should be treated differently than if it were larger. The basic principle is that WP is NOT PAPER, the needless discussion of this here is, in fact, more harm to the encyclopedia than the bytes occupied by the page. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete No indication of wp:notability. The only "reference" is a brief listing on a web site. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per JClemens and improve.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete - Can be replaced with a navbox on the individual games' pages. Redundant article. - hahnchen 17:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

that it can be so replaced is not an argument that it should be. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Yeah, but when people say something like this, they are also implying that it should be. Seriously, you don't possibly expect a reply that says "oh, sorry, what a waste of time I coming here and saying something like this when I am strongly against a navbox", now do you? ;) Fleet Command (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. No indication, through citations to substantial and reliable coverage in the article, that this series is notable (WP:GNG) as a whole. Can be replaced, as suggested, with a navbox for the few people who want to navigate between the games of the series.  Sandstein  20:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per failing WP:N & WP:LISTN. While the individual article establish notability on their own, notability is not inherited. Not against adding a navbox to individual game articles per above. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2012 (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.