Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factions in Supreme Commander


 * 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   merge to Supreme Commander.  MBisanz  talk 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Factions in Supreme Commander

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list of fictional groups does not establish notability independent of Supreme Commander through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the current summary in the main article is adequate. TTN (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep TTN redirected this article to the main Supreme Commander article without discussing this in any way or establishing consensus. I have opened a discussion on the article's talk page to attempt to arrive at one. I believe this article is improveable in line with Species of Starcraft, and that some time should be allowed to assist the article in reaching this standard. While eventualism is not such a great philosophy, I believe that by initiating this discussion we may be motivated into at least trying to improve the article before merging or deleting it. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can provide sources that contain real world information comparable to the real world information of the Starcraft list, I will gladly withdraw this for now. Until then, there is really no reason to believe that this has any potential. TTN (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a straight redirect plus a quick merge for the moment would be fine, as there are citations meaning that the material is WP:V, which makes it "safe" to include in the parent. Recreating the article with real-world information when we have that on hand would be better for all articles involved, in my opinion. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Apart from some opinions and trivial detail and images with dubious fair use claims, all the material is already in the main article, so there's no good reason to make a split off. The only thing I'd recommend to include in the main article is the faction logos in some combined logo image. - Mgm|(talk) 00:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe this was originally created because there was so much necessary information for the factions of SupCom that a new article was necessary to cover it all. I see no problem with integration, but the article was voted to be an FA with the voters knowing the comprehensiveness of the factions was never in question. As such, if you blithely redirect it, it could destabilize the quality of the main Supreme Commander article. As a person who is not knowledgeable about Supreme Commander and how much info is necessary, I think other voices should be heard. If Krator is still around, he has a good understanding of the article, and a worthwhile opinion. I myself am retired, and have a hazy understanding of current polices.--CM (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge – into Supreme Commander and cut all the excessive fair-use images per WP:NFCC. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 07:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DeathAngel. Xihr  06:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I fail to see how this, as a subject, conforms to WP:WAF guidelines. The factions should be briefly discussed in the plot synopsis in the main article. Marasmusine (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect, allowing for possibility of spinning out again at a later date when sources can be found. The nomination here highlights the problem with using boilerplate text. The article is reasonably (but not completely) referenced; original research is at a minimum. The references provided are all from a reliable source. There are very few plot details here, none of which would be considered "excessive" if the article had the information required to demonstrate notability. Only a few lines feel like game guide content. What we have here has been written well. If it wasn't for the fact I know TTN has been discussing the article on the talk page, one might easily assume he hasn't looked at it. Judging by what I'm reading at the talk page, the people working on Supreme Commander are currently trying to sort out articles relating to Command and Conquer, and thus are a little too busy to deal with sorting out this article, but seem confident they can get development and reception information. We have a plausible search term here, people willing to try to improve the article when time permits and decent prose to build on. Redirect or userify it. That way the editors won't have to start from scratch when they get around to it. Worst case scenario, allow editors to merge the content into the into the main article. -- Sabre (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect, allowing for possibility of spinning out again at a later date when sources can be found per S@bre. PhilKnight (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge (pruning as necessary) into Supreme Commander (which ought to be called Supreme Commander (game) to distingusih from real life supreme commanders such as President of USA and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2008 (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.