Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halo 3 New Convenant and Human Weapons


 * 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Halo 3 New Convenant and Human Weapons

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

Article appears to have been recreated at Halo 3 Human/Covenant Weapons. KnightLago (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that i screwed up the title on that page, so i created that other page, so i'm fine with that duplicate page being deleted. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated the following related pages because this page contains the same info with a different page title:

A list of weapons. This is gamecruft garbage, pure and simple, violates WP:NOT and WP:V. Prod removed by author with no explanation. JuJube (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you actually looked at the discussion, then you would see my post. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw it. Not convinced. Please see aforementioned policies before getting a snarky attitude. (Also, change your sig, it is just too damn long.) JuJube (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when was deleting without explanation, and deleting for a reason that you don't agree with become the same thing? I also reserve the right to make my signature as long as I want, as long as it follows Wikipedia policy, which it does.I would also like a specific quote from those two policies that this article violates.C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Not a manual, guidebook or textbook" and "Not an indiscriminate collection of information" for the first part, and basically all of the second link. Now stop being the peanut gallery. JuJube (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't this content be a part of the main Halo article? There's not enough substance here for it to stand up by itself. Quanticle (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that option better than total deletion, I still think that it doesn't violate the wikipedia policies.Also, bungie isn't exactly an unknown company, I'm pretty sure that they are a reliable source, so the second policy doesnt apply. And for the first policy, explain how this article is a manual, guide book or textbook.C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Did you even look at my citations section? Its at the bottom of the page. Both websites describe the weapons. As i stated before, i am merely stating the differences in features between halo 3 and the preceding games in the series, and in this case, the features are the new weapons. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't cite any sources that describe the weapons, so yes it does apply. And if you can't see how this is a game guide, I would question your reading skills. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - This is game guide material. It reads like something out of either a game guide or instruction manual. Policy WP:NOT indicates that it should not be included. The article features no citations, making it impossible to claim verifiability or notability. Additionally, Oppose merge into Halo 3, as I do not feel it would add to a already FA rated article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 01:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation added, more to come. And this is not a "game guide" it is merely stating and describing new features that this sequel to Halo and Halo 2 had that they don't, and in this case the features are new weapons. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:V. No indepentently, verifiable sources of where the information came from. Reads like an ad, guide, or non-independent review. Bungie is a Microsoft company. If it's personal opinion ("watching your enemies running around in with flames licking their armor is well worth it"), then it violates WP:NOR.--Wolfer68 (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, deleted all personal opinion. If their are any more policy violations tell me and i will change it.Why is bungie not a reliable source? Also, i'd like to comment that the list of number one hits in norway two spaces above this article has gotten one keep.C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep if i havnt already made my vote clear. C H, current student and official Wiki Editor of the Kinawa Middle School Article (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete "A vast improvement from Halo 2, you are no longer a sitting duck for those trigger happy snipers with the new option of detaching turrets. You can swiftly take out enemy troops with the hail of bullets, and evade theirs on the move." Sure sounds like a game guide to me. Maxamegalon2000 06:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious game guide content; indefensibly so. - Chardish (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Transwiki anyone? --Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Halo 3 Wiki has this one covered already
 * Well, that's that then. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT
 * Speedy Delete; Snowball Clause This article doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting notability and is a guide and FAQ that has already been covered at the Halo Wiki; so there is no need to run it through the deletion process here as of WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:SNOWBALL --MahaPanta (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete just close it and kill the article RogueNinja talk  19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if I was an Admin I would delete this article and suggest that any encyclopedic data be added to the main Halo 3 article.--MahaPanta (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the Halo universe is very popoular and there are undoubtedly sufficient guide-books, game commentarties, etc. that can be used as references for this facts about the game. Johntex\talk 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only indiscriminate information. Nothing worth merging. – sgeureka t•c 17:23, 15 March 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.