Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morretti SR4

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 will be happy to restore the content in userspace if anyone is interested in salvaging some of it or transwikying.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morretti SR4

A fictional weapon from one video game with no other notable qualities can be included in a list in the original BF2142 article, but certainly does not deserve its own article. Ops101ex (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Jaewonnie (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wholly unsourced, much of the article is Gameguide information. As suggested by WP:GAMETRIVIA, weapons lists or articles on a single weapon/game concept are not considered important to the understanding of the game as a whole. "Vote" changed to Transwiki, see below. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Asserts no notability either. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiable topic, only created a few days ago, so Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Articles on single weapon/game concepts ae considered important to the understanding of the game as a whole as practised by the hundreds of editors who create and work on these kinds of articles. If as the nomination suggests it could be included in some context with another article, then we would merge and redirect without deleting in the worst case scenario. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No sources assert notability, also, creation of certain types of articles does not equate to Consensus. The weapon itself is not a major game mechanic, that is to say, it itself is not crucial to interacting with the game. It is one of two primary weapons of one out of four character classes. Furthermore, it provides no new or notable dimensions of interaction (For a positive example, see Gravity Gun), it is essentially "just another" Sniper Rifle. Therefore, it is not an exception to the Unsuitable Content guidelines under WP:VGSCOPE. I do agree that this is valuable information, however, so I change my "vote" to Transwiki. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 19:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, had a look for reliable third-party sources to atest notability, but can't find any. As said, it doesn't appear to be a major game mechanic, its just another standard game weapon. Its also a breach of Wikipedia is also not a game instruction manual. It may be a reasonably useful search term, so it could be worth a redirect. If not, delete.-- Sabre (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Headshot - does not show where it has had significant, independent, reliable coverage (WP:N) and does not present any out-of-universe context (WP:WAF). Suggest transwiki to appropriate gaming-specific wiki. Marasmusine (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, To wikia.--SkyWalker (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet, it is notable through a real world audience and can be verified through reliable sources. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't have any sources at all. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're out there, but just need to be added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't have any sources out there, either, not the kind we can use. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can use the game's instructions, published game guides, and references in magazines. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Or, we could let people who want a gameguide do their own Googling/experimenting with the buttons on their game. "I wonder if I hit quarter-circle-back...?" Wikipedi has rules against "How To" and "GameGuide", sorry. Your argumentation reminds me of the NRA, who oppose even the most reasonable restrictions on guns out of fear that the next step is government agents kicking in doors and confiscating all the guns in the US. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (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.