Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant (Clash of Clans)


 * 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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Giant (Clash of Clans)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also goes to all other articles in Category:Clash of Clans troops. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Multinom also includes:


 * Delete; they all fail WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:Notability. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 06:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:GNG Reliable secondary sources with significant coverage for each of these do not exist. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:MULTIAFD steps IV and V. I think the other pages needs to be tagged  Giant (Clash of Clans) , and the articles listed here. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all once they are all listed here.  — Gestrid  ( talk ) 09:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep useful article→SeniorStar (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sergecross73   msg me  14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to main clash of clans page Seasider91 (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

to reply to me 14:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:GNG, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE. Each topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is a not a gameguide. Trivial things like units in a video game are not significant enough for independent articles. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all as WP:GAMECRUFT failing WP:GNG with exclusively primary sources. Redirects are pointless as the main article has no extra information. A list of classes would not have enough properly sourced content to warrant a split from main article. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all - None meet the GNG, nor are they particularly good search terms for redirects Sergecross73   msg me  14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, and close this AfD. This is a clear case of gamecruft, unnecessary for Wikipedia. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all + the category, cruft and not very well written. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * Delete all, plus the category, for all of the myriad reasons presented already. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment After this AfD closes in a couple of days, I suggest the category be speedy-deleted under WP:G6. In my opinion, it would certainly qualify as uncontroversial maintenance, and I don't see anything there disqualifying it from G6.  Nominating it for CfD would be a waste of editor time, in my opinion.  It is, of course, the closer's call on what to do about it.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 09:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow delete. These articles are simply game cruft.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   10:35, 9 December 2016 (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.