Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground Control series

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)
      • 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)