Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomberman II

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No Consensus to delete

Bomberman II
NES cruft (that is, non-encyclopedic) DCEdwards1966 03:32, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, poor article but valid subject matter. - SimonP 03:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bomberman's a pretty big franchise, but it's already got its own article, and there's nothing special about this particular entry in the series. Shimeru 03:59, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for people to work on and improve. bbx 04:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I feel sorry for the contributor. Wikipedia must look like an ungrateful place. Keep and cleanup. Then probably merge to Bomberman. Kappa 05:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is nothing remarkable about this entry into the franchise.  If you expect gratitude for endless splitting of common games into infinite particles, then I suppose an online encyclopedia might be disappointing, yes.  That's why there are gamer sites, with hard disks filled with hundreds of megs of exciting news about Warcraft I and Baldur's Gate I and the hoped-for release of Planescape: Torment II.  No one need wait ten years, but let the dust settle a little.  Geogre 05:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for good faith contributions even if they aren't what wikipedia really needs. Wikipedia certainly appears to invite this kind of information (depending on your entry route). Kappa 06:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that all good faith contributions should be kept? One could easily write something in good faith which is entirely pointless, and, while I am grateful that the original author decided to add to the Wikipedia, I still think that this particular article need not exist. Delete. - Vague | Rant 07:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean to suggest that, of course some things are best deleted. Kappa 08:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or, failing that, merge into Bomberman. Bryan 06:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 06:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is useless, subject is already covered adequately at Bomberman. Gdr 09:01, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into Bomberman. This is an encyclopedia, not a gaming site. Isomorphic 09:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with above. utcursch 10:44, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Bomberman and Redirect. A redirect shouldn't do any harm; there aren't any disambiguation issues.  Agree that we don't need a separate article for a relatively nn game sequel. --TenOfAllTrades 16:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Bomberman, otherwise Delete. Rje 16:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Either merge, or keep if someone writes a good amount of material on Bomberman II. Meelar (talk) 16:59, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup-expand or merge and redirect into Bomberman. Mrwojo 19:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Trash, Merge and Redirect. We don't have articles on the other Bombermans, and Bomberman is almost a stub. Phils 19:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. Wyss 20:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -Ld | talk 00:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:25, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, following the same tradition as the Rayman article (is this in the correct format? I've done some of the more recent edits on it, and it's getting long.  Might change this VfD vote depending on replies to this message.) --Idont Havaname 04:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable game for a notable franchise. I've added the necessary  tag. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 06:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect LizardWizard 01:30, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having multiple video games, films etc in the same article is not a good thing. Xezbeth  09:33, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. No apparent reason for possible deletion. Dan100 11:05, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * What the? Strong strong keep. Andre ( talk ) 21:23, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a case for Cleanup. Fredrik | talk 21:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Either cleanup and expand or merge into the existing Bomberman article. K1Bond007 01:49, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neutralitytalk 02:00, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and clean up. Megan1967 03:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. But then again, I think all console titles are deserving of articles. Perhaps not their own (Maybe it should be merged with Bomberman), but I'll let this slide, as others have told me it's worthy of its own article. --Golbez 22:27, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep! All console titles are deserving of their own article. Perhaps cleanup. Foolish fancruft-killers. &#9999; Oven Fresh  &#9786;  23:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is just as deserving as any other video game. It stays. Cookiecaper 05:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.