Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lords and Ladies (Max Payne)


 * 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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Lords and Ladies (Max Payne)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete or Merge Non notable element in Max Payne. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fictional television show in the background of the game. Appears not to have much importance in itself or to the overall plot. Delete. -- saberwyn 21:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, is a running theme throughout the series and quite unlike anything else I've seen in any other game. Mathmo Talk 06:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * State and support a claim for this so called "recurring theme." I don't recall anything about any "Lords and Ladies" in Max Payne 1, and I've played through that more than once. Don't take this the wrong way, but your above statements seem like fan support rather than citing a good reason why it should stay. ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 21:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * wwwwolf mentioned in the other AfD Lords and Ladies was in the first one. Mathmo Talk 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And also, the article itself says it was in both. Mathmo Talk 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, ok. But that doesn't merit it for separate article creation. Needs to be merged. ♣ Klptyzm  Chat wit' me  §   Contributions ♣ 05:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Both Address Unknown and Lords and Ladies appear in MP1, though they both have perhaps one TV appearance so it's more like one-off joke there. Both are much more widely used in MP2 though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect without merge to Max Payne, if someone wants to cover it briefly in that article, that's OK, but I don't think there's enough to be said about this to warrant an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete: WP:NOR and the duck test again. Miserably failing to consider WP:WAF is the icing on the OR cake. If you base an article entirely on your own original observations and extrapolations of a text, it's inevitably OR and not WAF-style. So inuniverse is a good reason to believe there's OR about. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:43, 18 February 2007 (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.