Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nod technology of Command & Conquer

: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. -- Balloonman (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

=[[Nod technology of Command & Conquer]]=

:{{la|Nod technology of Command & Conquer}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Delete for same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet technology of Command & Conquer. Pagrashtak 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - no out-of-universe context, as with the other nominations. Pagrashtak, you may wish to use a batch nomination next time! Marasmusine 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I tend not to batch nominate for groups as small as four, as if there is something in one article worth saving it throws off the entire nomination and drags the process out. Pagrashtak 18:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep per reasoning in the other nominations. I should note that any applicable cleanup tags should be added to all of them, and further note that if a proper merge can't be found for the stuff, the next time it's up for AfD, I'll go with delete. Jtrainor 08:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

:Keep or Merge - Same reasoning as in the relevant GDI AfD. The articles are rubbish but are heavily relied upon by the parent works, so the content should be preserved in some form (that merge proposal wasn't a bad idea). MalikCarr 08:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for being related only to the game universe. This type of content is much more suited to some wiki specifically about those games. Friday (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per already stated reasons --Eldarone 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - here's a novel concept...delete in terms of policy: this article fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS...outside the game manual, there's no references other than one blog (hardly a RS), and there's no demonstration from outside sources that this subject is actually notable in an encyclopedic way. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

:Unless you forgot the Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars (novel), developer blogs, interviews, offical sites (http://www.ea.com/cncx360/units.jsp?ncc=1), game development articles (like http://pc.ign.com/articles/725/725322p1.html) , I think there are more than enough secondary sources. --Eldarone 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep it. It is improtant to everyone along with GDI Technology. I will stop you from deleting the page. I will keep the page because of it had a long history.(TougHHead 08:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete - Per policies listed by User:Akradecki. Also, I would be interested in how the user intends to stop the deletion, if that passes. I somehow think he wasn't referring to DR either. - BillCJ 15:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Better suited for places like Wikia than the main Wikipedia project.--RosicrucianTalk 18:55, 15 November 2007 (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.