Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doom Troopers (2nd nomination)

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 Speedy Close since no deletion is required. I'll perform the redirect and merge. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Troopers

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

No reliable secondary sources that cover the game directly in detail. Explodicle (T/C) 22:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We are not MobyGames or GameFAQs. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hesitated when I saw that this previously passed an AfD, but I'm not sure why it did in the first place. The best argument for inclusion appears to be that the game exists. There is, as far as I can tell, a total absence of reliable secondary sourcing on the topic. And I say this making a sad face because I have a soft spot for obscure SNES titles :( ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article reads: "The game was known for depicting blood and mutilations of the enemies killed. For example, the common enemies in the first level are usually decapitated before they die." I don't recall Nintendo licensing any games for the SNES that had blood, mutilation, or decapitation in them. They had rules against any realistic display of blood, and refuse to allow Mortal Combat to decapitate enemies, so why would they allow this game to do so? How popular is the card game it was based on? That article says they have over a thousand cards. If nothing else, you could merge it with the article for that series, although I see no reason why every game ever officially released shouldn't have its own article. Wikipedia is not paper, and no sense not being thorough. Dream Focus 16:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"although I see no reason why every game ever officially released shouldn't have its own article." Well that may be your opinion, but there are guidelines here that tend to disagree with you opinion. Why stop with videogames? Should we extend this to software? Should Wikipedia have an article on every piece of software ever released? Striking previous, this shouldn't turn into a policy debate! The general notability guideliness clearly preclude including "every game ever officially released."
That said, if this was based on a card game, there's pretty clear precedent for a merge, so we are possibly agreed there. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ginsengbomb, WP:N should apply but a merge sounds like the best idea. If JBsupreme consents I'll withdraw the nomination and perform the merge. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... I'm not opposed to a redirect. There isn't much of anything to merge here, and the target article is also lacking in reliable sources as well. So this is a pretty weak redirect but perhaps something can be done with the target page. Wishful thinking? JBsupreme (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2010 (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.