Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe


 * 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 of the discussion was delete. Policy and precedent are being cited by the delete voters, while all the keep voters have is "I think this is useful" and "Here is a fansite which duplicates this information"... (ESkog)(Talk) 12:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

List of vehicles in the Halo universe
Wikipedia is not a game strategy guide - this is one of the facts stated in What Wikipedia is not. The article is also entirely unreferenced and unsourced, and contains a heap of original research, such as '' the Halo games (so far) only two Monitors have been seen. However, there are most likely seven Monitors, each corresponding to a certain installation''.

If you need further convincing, apply Calton's Theory on Gamecruft:

Spilt the world into two groups: Those who own Halo: already have the game manual which contains all this information. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none. Those who do not own Halo: have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.

Precedent for decisions of this kind can be found at Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG), or, perhaps more pertinently, Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series. I am aware that Halo has its own project, and therefore the article will no doubt attract some block voting from a special interest group. I hope the closing admin is able to take into account both the strength and applicability of arguments, rather than just counting numbers. To summarise, the article fails WP:NOR, WP:V, and, most importantly, WP:NOT. Delete. Proto /// type  11:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Gameguidelistcruft. Wikipedia is not a replacement video game manual. -- GWO


 * Delete per nom. Also, the article fails WP:V, so the content can actually be deleted without an AFD. (Yeah, it would cause an edit war no doubt, so this is a better option). ---J.S (t|c) 16:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Article seems to have at least one reliable source in the context of a video game. I do not believe it satisfies any solid criteria for deletion any more. That's enough for a week-keep out of me. Not a strong keep because the article needs more sourceing and some work removeing OR... but thats something that don't need to be hashed out here. I'd keep for now and renominate in a month if problems stay. ---J.S (t|c) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I like Calton's argument. And for the record, I like the work done by the Halo wikiproject, but I have played... let's say around 300 hours of "Halo" and "Halo 2" combined (give or take). I'm a huge fan, and I see no reason this article really needs to exist (both per precident and per rational thought). -- Kicking222 17:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Using the reasoning provided, all lists anything like it, in the Halo Wikiproject or not, are "useless" and thus should be removed (lists of weapons, characters, episodes, etc.) I admit it needs sourcing, etc. But I see no reason for its total deletion. David Fuchs 17:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a (good) reason to keep it? Proto ///  type  12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This AfD nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the WP:NOT. This article is not a manual, guide or a "how-to", thus WP:NOT does not apply. A manual contains instructions for how to do or use a certain thing, and this article don't. I think it's important that we all understand what a manual is, and what it's not, in order to avoid future AfDs without justification or support from the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The second reason for me voting to keep this article is that this AfD nom. seems to be based on someones personal opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't contain info about games. This means that this AfD nom. in a way violates WP:NOT (censorship) and WP:NPOV, and as long as the Wikipedia policies and guidelines doesn't state that Wikipedia is supposed to be kept free from game-related information, I will vote against AfDs like this one just out of principle. However, this article do need more sources and references, but that can be worked on, and doesn't justify a deletion. /Magore 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may not like it, but failure of WP:V really is a justification for deletion. Those who want to keep something are the ones who are required to provide reliable sources. ---J.S (t|c) 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Lacking proper sources and thus not being verified isn't the same thing as not being verifiable. WP:V only applies in AfDs if something is inherently unverifiable. Ace of Sevens 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article can be verified, then by all means, please provide this verification. Or will you just claim it's all verifiable, and then not provide us with verification?   Proto //</I><B>/</B>  type  12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as part of WikiProject Halo, and as stated above. Also, deleting this would kill several of the links based off Halo, Red vs Blue and its supporting pages. Just look at how many things link to this page using "What Links Here". If you kill this article for acting as a replacement, then think of all the information we'll have to delete to stay within the precedence a decision like that would set. --Targetter 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You raise an interesting point. Since my primary consern is that lack of sourceing I'd be totaly willing to change my "vote" to keep as soon as someone provided some sourceing. 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I will happily fix all the broken links if this article is deleted. One of the things an admin is asked to do when closing an AFD dicsussion with a 'delete' verdict is to fix the redlinks.  The article being linked to in a walled garden of Halocruft is not a reason to keep it.  Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  12:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as part of Wikipedia. Needs cleanup, but a useful page. RelentlessRouge 21:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a part of wikipedia? This discussion is to decided if it SHOULD be part of wikipedia, not if it already is. (You can only AFD things that are already parts of wikipedia afterall). ---J.S (t|c) 23:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 23:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep because its cruftiness to quality ratio is actually fairly low. If you want to kill the cruft-Hydra this ain't the way. Outriggr 23:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not a video game fan, but the article seems very relevant to the Halo project, similar to FF7 locations.  Agreed that cleanup and citing is needed. -Markusbradley 00:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. This is a collection of data about the game, but that ddoesn't make it a game guide.  If it were a list of vehicle strategies, that would be different.  This is just a section of the Halo articles that got toolong for the game pages. Ace of Sevens 01:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would rather say that this AfD no longer has any justification. This is not a manual, so the WP:NOT does no longer apply. The information is verifiable (although some editors confuse verifiability with verified, it's not the same, vefifiable means that it can be verified, not that it is), meaning that it doesn't violate WP:V either. And since it's not original research, WP:NOR doesn't apply. This leaves us with some administrators and editors personal opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't contain any game info, and that's not an acceptable argument for deletion, since it violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not censored. Personally, I absolutely detest cruft, and would like to rid Wiki of it. But this isn't gamecruft, since gamecruft (as well as other forms of cruft found here and there on Wikipedia) is based on conclusions and assumptions made by some individuals (ie fantasies and their own little "contributions" and "improvements" to for the example overall storyline of a movie, or a fictional universe), and are non-factual/non-canonical information. According to my experience, people tend to condemn everything they personally don't like or are interested in as "cruft", although it is often based on facts and reliable sources. And when you're fighting cruft, you don't use AfD templates, you clean up the crufty articles instead. /M.O (u) (t) 16:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, that is WP:NOT a game guide and WP:NOR and WP:V are not optional. The existence of a whole lot of other unencyclopedic gamecruft is no reason to keep this article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above, it's not game guide info and has no strategies.--Zxcvbnm 16:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - While there is a huuuuge amount of cruft in this article, if it is edited down, I feel it can become a relatively respectable article. Wickethewok 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are far too many things linking to the page and the information can be sourced.  Just because an article sits there with a template saying that this article does source it's statements for a long period of time, that doesn't mean it should get an AfD vote.  These things need to be fixed.  That's what this whole thing is about.  A collaboration between the people of Earth.  And collaborations take time.  We'll get to these things, that's what we set up the Halo WikiProject for.  It just takes time.  Get rid of the AfD vote, and slowly but surely we'll get to these things. -007bond 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if it has been tagged for sources for a long time, and they aren't provided, an AFD vote is exactly what it should get.  Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added sources to about two thirds of the vehicles in the article -007bond 23:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though some sections--Warthog in particular--are too detailed for their own good, the page is needed as a vehicle index. Halo's vehicles are too entrenched in culture to simply delete them, in my opinion. Also, keep in mind that having one comprehensive page for Halo vehicles is much better than having a dozen seperate pages, each for a vehicle. --Ourai 01:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, not game-guide content, article does need more sources. In case an article lacks sources, tag it for cleanup .. don't drag it through AfD. jaco ♫ plane  02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's been tagged for sources for months. Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, no advantage in deleting what can be salvaged. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - no reason to keep provided. Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd realy prefer it if you would quit with that. Just because you feel logic is wrong, dosn't mean it isn't there. ---J.S (t|c) 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This information can be found in any game FAQ, walkthrough, or guide book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarroSIN (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 July 2006
 * Keep but cleanup. If you believe in immediatism, sure, this article is in bad shape. But I think that this is an encyclopedic topic, and we should approach it from the viewpoint that it is an incomplete article, rather than one that is unsalvageable. When WP:WAF was being developed, many felt that it should not be made policy because that would potentially spark deletion of salvageable articles on fiction. Although I am nominally part of WikiProject Halo, I'm not a big content contributor; I go through a copyedit articles from time to time. I would say that the focus needs to shift to describing the vehicles as cultural artifacts. By this, I mean that the following questions should be answered (and sourced):
 * How did Bungie come up with the idea for creation? Did they take anything from their earlier games, or perhaps from other fiction?
 * For vehicles in both Halo and Halo 2, how did they change? Were the changes aesthetic or for reasons of game balance?
 * How did game critics and other reliable sources react to the vehicles, or any changes made between the games? Are there any reliable reviews that mention the vehicles' handling and shift to third-person perspective?
 * How have the vehicles been used in notable machinima pieces? For example, the Warthog was the subject of both Warthog Jump, a video that exploits the Halo physics engine, and an entire episode of Red vs Blue (where the characters wonder why it's called the Warthog in the first place).
 * In short, I really do think that this topic can be treated encyclopedically, and, in researching along the lines that I mentioned above, editors may find that they have enough material to justify splitting some of the more notable vehicles into their own articles. — TKD::Talk 18:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My god ... if that happens, the terrorists have already won. ;) Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article contains genuinely useful information and is salvageable, per JJay (below)--Cornflake pirate 14:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - no reason to keep provided. And, how? Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  14:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that TKD made some very compelling points as to the usefulness of some of the information. If Wikipedia is meant to be a truly comprehensive dictionary, then deletion should be a last resort--we can always try to salvage the article first by removing that information which is more suited for a strategy guide than an encyclopaedia. Ourai 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See What Wikipedia is not.  Proto <I><B>/</B>/</I><B>/</B>  type  15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I do, however, believe it is possible to reject dictionary-like discourse in favor of encyclopaedic analysis. After all, isn't that what Wikipedia's all about? Ourai 16:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to play devil's advocate for articles like this. You just mentioned analysis, but on such topics as these, how can the analysis not be "original"? These articles cannot possibly meet Wikipedia's formal article criteria, for what is the "source" of the material in this article other than the game itself? To the extent that an article like this is allowed, it needs to be judged on its balance and reasonability vis-a-vis the small world it describes. That description is always going to be "original research", in the most trivial possible sense of that term. I have to wonder about anyone who thinks that observing and synthesizing certain facts about a video game violates Wikipedia standards. The standard should be: this is too silly for an encyclopedia that wants to be taken seriously, or it isn't. I fail to see how any of the listed WP policies--original research, strategy guides, dicdef--meaningfully apply to this article. I say either develop a policy that says a video game can have only one page to describe it, without going into excessive detail, or let it rest, unless the article in question is just crap. Which this isn't. That's my opinion... Outriggr 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: "article contains genuinely useful information" is a reason to keep. You may think it's a bad reason, but it's a reason. "Keep because my toe is yellow" would be a bad reason... but still a reason. ---J.S (t|c) 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the "bad reason" given, see JJay below. --Cornflake pirate 12:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't play video games or know anything about Halo. That's why I found this article on its vehicles quite informative. There is no reason that we shouldn't be documenting important aspects of these games, which have become a form of literature for an entire generation. Could be useful for people like me who might need the info in the future, perhaps as part of a research project, or in order to discuss halo with the grandchildren. Doesn't seem to violate seriously any policies, but does have some extensive footnotes at the bottom of the page. --JJay 19:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:V and/or WP:NOR? ---J.S (t|c) 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Both satisfied by references (see bottom of article). Furthermore, since this article is about a text, the text itself is a reference. For example, The Lord of the Rings's article doesn't need a reference to say that the main character is Frodo Baggins, since that text itself is a primary source. In the same way, this article doesn't need a reference to say that the vehicles are Warthog, Tank, etc. There is probably a policy page on this somewhere but I have no idea where to find it. --Cornflake pirate 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm seems like I'm wrong according to Reliable_sources (although I could be reading this incorrectly). :S --Cornflake pirate 13:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Full of advice. Wholly unsourced except for the games in question. Lots of in-universe writing. There is nothing encyclopedic one can say about 99% of these vehicles. This is one of the worst game-guide articles I've seen in a long time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom (Game manual/gamecruft) and Man in Black. JJay's comment: He doesn't play video games and and has never heard of Halo but says "Could be useful for people like me who might need the info in the future, perhaps as part of a research project, or in order to discuss halo with the grandchildren." I was just imagining what the research project could be ("The Warthog jeep in this Halo controllable screen picture thingy appears to be totally indestructible even when fighting the alien tanks with technologies far advanced beyond mankind's knowledge (their Achilles' Heel? destructability!). JJay, the DoD is assigning your team $10bn over 5 years to discover how to replicate this incredible technology in real life".), when the next image of JJay's grandkids' facial expressions when JJay starts talking in detail about Halo vehicles out of nowhere made me laugh so hard I spat out my dinner all over my office desk. Thanks Jjay! Bwithh 00:07, 13 July 2006 (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.