Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Army Men (series)


 * 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   keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Army Men (series)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Really has nothing but guide content, a list, and a meager reception section. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep and comment I've added the rescue tag - such a long running series deserves an over-arching article, but it could do with some tidying up and sources. Artw (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, i copied the list of games over to my userpage, in the idea that because this series pages is pretty poor, maybe we could just make a list of games to accompany the individual game articles in the template. The problem with the series article is the guide content and the lack of referencing. Ill support a deletion of this series article if no one is going to go after the individual game articles and delete them to. If the series article does go then i will complete the list ive started. Salavat (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Salavat (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as merge target: as bad as the article is, it beats having an article on every single entry in the series, some/most of which could stand to be merged here: Note the red links in Army Men series, and also note the article on the first game in the series was merged to the series article. Nifboy (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: It's pretty trivial to find, within reviews of its component games, sources that indicate the series as a whole has a terrible reputation:, , , , . Nifboy (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD is not cleanup. WP:NOTCLEANUP Discuss things on the talk page, don't waste our time here. Some of the games sold well, got plenty of coverage, and thus this is clearly a notable series.   D r e a m Focus  02:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Success =/= a reason to have a series article. If it doesn't need an article, which the current contents do not establish this, then there should not be a series article. There is this misguided notion that series articles are needed if a series is successful enough or has enough games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conversely, I don't see a need to have an article on many individual games, even if they each have sources, if a series article would suffice (which IMO is the case here). Nifboy (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as merge target tbh having this article completely done over is probably better than having all the individual articles for the games- Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just because an article is a mess and doesn't have up-to-the-last-minute information is not a reason for deletion. That's what tags are for. The article actually has a pretty good amount of information... I mean, it's series spanning a decade with hundreds of thousands of google hits and hundreds of articles (each) on major gaming websites. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanout the cruft. This is a good place to discuss mention of the Army Men series, and the broader topic is much more notable than the individual sections which are within it. Also, per Nifboy.  Them  From  Space  01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any valid reason for deletion; the series is notable, having recieved plenty of media coverage. In any case, the issue here is cleaning up the article and possibly merging the other articles into this one, which is not what AfD is for. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - for pretty much the reasons daTheisen listed. It needs cleanup and sourcing.  Not deletion. --Teancum (talk) 15:46, 2 November 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.