Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left 4 Dead (series)


 * 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 keep and move to Left 4 Dead (franchise). Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead (series)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A "series" with only 2 video games, a lot of the article either duplicates content from Left 4 Dead, is WP:OR or irrelevant. If the massive amounts of original research were removed it would be a relative stub and would probably remain so given the unlikelihood of a 3rd game now that Back 4 Blood exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article absolutely needs improvement, but that's not a reason for deletion. The series as a whole is clearly notable based on the sourcing, and an article covering the franchise as a whole allows for coverage of the cancelled sequel, spinnoffs, and comics. This is a classic case of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not convincing that the little information on permanently cancelled Left 4 Dead 3 cannot be moved to a section at the end of Left 4 Dead 2. The fact remains that it is a series with 2 games, the 2nd of which is so similar to the first that it literally incorporates all the first one's campaigns in it to the point where it's obsolete. There is not really any need for discussion of changes made throughout the series because there are hardly any. Comics can also be talked about in the Left 4 Dead article without WP:UNDUE weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep- per 's comments above. I'm inclined to agree that even though this article definitely needs improvement, it seems notable enough given the sources already cited. And the parent article gives coverage to spin-offs and cancelled sequels as noted above. Spf121188 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep But maybe move to Left 4 Dead (franchise) since it covers comics, spin-offs and other stuff as well.★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support this move. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to both of the respective game's articles. There's long-standing consensus that two entries is not enough for a series article. NOTCLEANUP is irrelevant - the article is completely duplicative and redundant - all content can easily fit into the original game or sequel's article, because that's all there is to talk about. It has to fall into one or the other. Sergecross73   msg me  17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Left 4 Dead (franchise) The franchise includes more than just the two video games, and it's clearly a notable franchise overall. This article covers things that wouldn't make sense to cover in any of the articles about the individual entries in the franchise, such as the merchandise and the cancelled sequel, so it is not entirely duplicative or redundant. Mlb96 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How so exactly? The Midnight Riders songs are explicitly linked to Left 4 Dead 2 and have nothing to do with Left 4 Dead 1. Besides that, toys and action figures just cover a couple sentences and can be mentioned in passing in either or both of the articles without it being undue.
 * The Left 4 Dead 3 info can be mentioned in the Legacy section of Left 4 Dead 2, being the game that directly follows it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and support moving to (franchise). Yes it is only a 2-game series, but there's clearly additional media, and the combination of both games have cultural elements to them that are covered at that level. It is entirely possible to cover all that in only two articles, but this three-article approach makes it a bit easier for organizating the information. Certainly it is not an issue of notability with the series/franchise as a whole. --M asem (t) 13:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The articile has some issues, but worthy of an article TzarN64 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2022 (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.