Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brotherhood of Nod


 * 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. Clearly the policy is that standalone articles must be independantly notable and the clear consensus is that there are no independant reliable sources here Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Nod

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I looked around and the only sources I could find for this are self-published sources from Electronic Arts, West Wood Studios, or business partners. Nothing with the independence required to WP:verify notability. I realize it's a lengthy article and someone put in a lot of effort to source it to the game, to developer diaries, to instruction manuals... but that's not how notability works. You need reliable secondary sources that are independent of the maker. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously spun off from the Command and Conquer game articles and too lengthy to merge back in. Article is well sourced and is a legitimate sub-article of the main Command & Conquer article.  See WP:SS for discussion of the acceptability, and appropriate styling, of sub-articles of this type. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read WP:SS for a discussion of acceptable sub-articles and it led me to see a guideline called WP:AVOIDSPLIT... you're entitled to your opinion, but don't point to policies that make the exact opposite argument of what you're trying to make. WP:AVOIDSPLIT at WP:SS says we shouldn't keep this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The key word in WP:AVOIDSPLIT is "unnecessary". It's advising you not to spin off material MERELY because it's too long or because other similar topics have been spun off.  An article may still be spun-off despite having no independent notability where reasons of size and valid detail demand it.  This view is supported by WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLIT.  I see an argument for your side too but I still say my view is the prevalent policy-supported one. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it does not appear to be notable through reliable secondary sources, Sadads (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be notable; it's a sub-article of the unarguably notable Command & Conquer. The information would be perfectly acceptable there, except that it's grown too long in length, and is being spun out not on grounds of independent notability but to improve the readability of the Command & Conquer topic series.  See WP:SS for a description of this process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Command & Conquer: Tiberian series . 76.66.202.72 (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DustFormsWords. Merging it into a Command & Conquer article that already has thousands of words in it would make the article far too lengthy, so I feel that it should stay in a separate article. I presume that this is also the reason for why fiction characters have their own articles- because if all of the information about them was included in a main article, that article would become too lengthy. --Slon02 (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This article doesn't need to be evaluated for notability as a standalone article. As mentioned above, Command & Conquer is undoubtedly notable - this is a sub article existing solely to provide more detailed coverage on an aspect of the main article without making it unwieldy in length. --§ Pump me up  09:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On what basis? Every article needs to be evaluated for notability as a standalone article. See WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says that an article "is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" if GNG is satisfied, not that the article can't be kept under any other guideline.  Jujutacular  talk 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - as per DustFormsWords and Pumpmeup. -- Aeonx (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A glance at Google Books demonstrates prima facie notability (more than enough coverage to base an article on, from an array of independent sources). —chaos5023 (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Notability is not inherited, and even if the article was merged, it still would not be too large compared to quite a few other similar articles we have (it would still be less than 80KB). That being said, the next issue would be whether or not merging would cause undue weight; that I argue would be a valid counterpoint. –MuZemike 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep per WP:SPINOFF. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect - sorry to be an old stick-in-the-mud, but this seems way out of whack with our manual of style for writing about fiction (WP:WAF) - see the section on "summary style approach". Marasmusine (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect - I agree. It seems to be an excessive amount of information for Wikipedia per WP:MOSFICT, and would likely be better suited for a Wikia.  The article is largely written from an in-universe perspective, with extensive in-universe details.  All of the basic background necessary for Wikipedia can be summarized in a few paragraphs along with similar articles in a Factions of Command & Conquer article. --Teancum (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect: WP:WAF AND WP:SS both say that splits and spinoffs need to be notable. Can't do that when the whole article is attributed to the games and developer diaries. Where are the third party sources? 74.198.9.141 (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. WP:AVOIDSPLIT indicates that split-off articles must be about notable aspects of the main article. If an article becomes too swollen with detailed descriptions of non-notable aspects, it needs cutting, not splitting. This is because what we otherwise get are articles such as this one that do not contain one third-party source - nice work, but suited for a fan wiki, not an encyclopedia.  Sandstein   21:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not for nothin', but did any of you guys over the last four !votes actually go so far as to hit the Google Books link, at the top of the page, in "Find sources"? It doesn't matter so much that the current cites are useless; WP:Potential, not just current state. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. The usable stuff is largely magazine reviews that mention Nod once as part of routine plot summary, etc. We should give the subject a similar amount of attention. There's also the GameAxis feature, but the context is the development of C&C3 and it's nothing that can't be included at Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. Marasmusine (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see support for the view that spinoffs can be about non-notable subject matter. If we accept that they can, we run the risk of devoting articles to material that hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore is hopelessly prone to original research. The editor above points to google books. I have looked there. What I see is not significant at all, but brief mentions of the subject matter in material that is primarily focused on Command & Conquer. This is an example of such coverage, while other Gbook hits are wikipedia mirrors. Please look at the sources carefully instead of, to use the language of a keep !vote above. a "glance" at Gbooks.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2010 (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.