Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enemies in Doom (2nd nomination)

:{{la|List of enemies in Doom}} ([{{fullurl:List of enemies in Doom|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of enemies in Doom (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Contains a whole TON of original research and/or game-guide-speak and is mostly unreferenced. Development section is already covered in Making of Doom and the monsters have no assertion of notability besides a sentence saying that they 'have become iconic in computer gaming'. Supposedly the problems from the last deletion had been addressed, but it doesn't seem like they have. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Doom is notable and has enough valid articles that a list of enemies is justifiable, I think. But there's no sources for almost everything listed, and despite several years of opportunity, it doesn't look like any are being added. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 19:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WAF. Real-world context is crammed into the last two small sections, which are easily subsumed into :Doom (video game) and :Making of Doom. Marasmusine (talk) 08:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, what a fascinating article. I just spent 45 minutes reading it and Googling pics of the creatures discussed. Well written, informative, absolutely brilliant. However, because it is such an amazingly good article, you guys will no doubt destroy it or else severely emasculate it. So, my vote, for whatever it's worth. --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The point isn't whether it's informative, as you could surely find [http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Doom/Monsters many other similar pages on the internet] with a google search if you wanted to find out about Doom. However, the page is written entirely in-universe with original research, and wouldn't be suitable for wikipedia.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

:::No offense meant to you, but the article you've pointed to is crap compared to this one. --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

::::...then why not improve that one instead?--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. As noted above, what useful real-world content there is could be merged.--Drat (Talk) 00:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – the entire thing is entirely either in-universe information or material otherwise found in game guides. Also per the consensus established in the first AFD. I will also point out that being well-written (which, IMHO, I have been much better writing and much better articles than this) is not a reason to keep (just as being poorly-written should not be a reason to delete). MuZemike 01:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Per Captain Infinity. Also Im about to add another interesting fact about the Cyberdemon.76.167.244.204 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

:Comment The fact that it's "interesting" is still not a valid reason to keep the article.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:30, 28 July 2009 (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.