Talk:Silhouette (Deus Ex)

Deletion
I fail to see why this entire article is unredeemable. Yes, it is too wordy, is unencyclopedic, and has an obvious political bent to it, but that does not mean it should be out-right deleted, just that some rewriting is in order. -- Grandpafootsoldier
 * This is highly-detailed plot summary of one single game. Why do we need 79 million pages all summarizing every minute detail of a pair of games? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is too long, that's obvious it needs to be organized more. As for there being too many Deus Ex pages - you could say the same thing about any work of fiction. What about the Lord of the Rings? That's only three books. What about Star Wars? That's only six movies. How about Halo? That's just a pair of games. Do they not deserve to have group of pages devoted to them and all their aspects either? -- Grandpafootsoldier
 * Lord of the Rings is a half-dozen novels, which have been analyzed endlessly and about which a great deal of independent commentary has been published. The Halo cruft is in the process of being cleaned up. Additionally, just because one game has a ton of crufty articles doesn't mean another game needs a ton of crufty articles; instead, it means that that first game's crufty articles need to be cleaned up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes they do need to be cleaned up, but I don't think any of them really need to be deleted outright at this point. All the articles are about major aspects of a popular video game series that deserve their own articles in a encylopedia as vast and diverse as Wikipedia IMO. (Also, I know this is off topic but saying that LOTR is a half-dozen novels is extremely debatable. The common view is that it is composed of three novels at the most - some say just one). -- Grandpafootsoldier
 * The trilogy, the Hobbit, Silmarillion, two short story collections, and some unfinished works.
 * If Versalife is so major, is there any analysis of it that isn't plot summary or analysis of Deus Ex as a whole? Can you cite any reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I admit I'm no Tolkien expert, but I have never heard anything about those works being included in the group known as "The Lord of the Rings" and have never seen them published as that. Perhaps you can cite some sources? ;)
 * Look, I admit VersaLife isn't an extremly important literary topic, but it is a unique aspect of a popular game series, and is just as important as hundreds of other articles on this site. Also, there are plenty of other articles which deserve the axe more IMO. I guess you are an admin and can do what you want, but I'm just saying I think you're getting a little axe happy. -- Grandpafootsoldier


 * If it's an important part of a popular game, then it should be mentioned as part of that popular game's article.


 * Now, if you honestly dispute this deletion, remove the prod and we'll go to AFD. This isn't at all an administrative action, and I'm in no way your superior, just a user who disagrees. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Deus Ex is very long and complicated and it would produce a needlessly crowded and long article to have everything on one page. That's why a bunch of small pages in one group were made in the first place.


 * I do dispute this deletion but I would prefer some more input from other users such as yourself before removing the tag. If you view is the consensus, the page should probably be deleted no matter what I think. The tag should be left up for a few days, however, just to be sure. -- Grandpafootsoldier


 * Fair enough. However, if you change your mind, feel free to remove the prod tag; I'm fairly sure my view is held at large, but AFD is useful in determining that if you have any doubt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep it. This article details a major group within Deus Ex. MIB, I'm at a loss to understand why you consistently attempt to merge or delete every article you feel isn't written correctly without following your own suggested guidelines and editing it to correct the perceived problem yourself. This isn't a paper encyclopedia, MIB, what is it exactly that you are trying to conserve by trimming whole articles away from sections? Stop wasting your time with these deletion proposals and instead repair the article to a standard you deem fit. Gamer Junkie 01:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't write WP:WAF or WP:CRUFT or WP:FICT. It fails WP:V and WP:NOR, as well as the previous three.
 * That's why I want to trim away the useless extras. Oftentimes they aren't in an encyclopedic style and cannot be in an encyclopedic style, and such articles are needless, overdetailed retelling of a story that someone is trying to make money by selling. This is an encyclopedia, not a project to abridge the plot of every single work of fiction in history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet you do nothing to make the article encyclopedic, you instead propose its deletion which neither serves an educational purpose nor helps to repair the situation. If this article doesn't meet your guidelines, convert the article as you see fit, because deleting it will simply leave it open for another fan to write another article. The next one might be a poorly spelled, badly written nightmare contributed by a 12-year-old. At least this article is well written, detailed and provides the facts and background information regarding "Silhouette" without any so-called "original research". So adjust THIS article to your "encyclopedic" standard, because the next one will, if you're lucky, be written in the same manner. If not, it'll be written in the same manner poorly. Gamer Junkie 13:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any content that can be recovered. (It needs to be stripped down to the sources and all the various plot summaries rewritten into one plot summary for each game, but there aren't any sources but the games.) I used prod so it would be more visible, instead of just redirecting it. If it's deleted, I was planning to redirect it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that you probably don't regard me very highly, MIB, but believe it or not, I am trying to work this out to the best possible extent for both Wikipedia and yourself. I see what you are trying to accomplish, and I'm only attempting to help you understand that if this article is deleted, there is absolutely no question that another of its kind will take its place within a couple of months. Unless you're prepared to spend what would appear to be an inexhaustable amount of time trying to pull Wikipedia's video game section into perfect allignment with Wiki guidelines over and over again, you're just going to have to find some sort of compromise. You'll have a psychological meltdown eventually. Gamer Junkie 14:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not even really sure who you are. (Usernames all seem to blur together for me; it reflects more my lack of memory than on you at all.) Nothing personal about this at all.


 * If this is recreated after being deleted via prod, I'll kick it to AFD. After that, either the AFD will come to a decision or it won't, and the issue will be solved.


 * As for my psychological state, it's kind of you to worry, but I've long resigned myself to the fact that I'm never, ever going to be popular with the sort of editor who writes articles about fictional conspiratorial groups, because they're forever going to see my work as destroying their work. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)