Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizations of Ace Combat


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Organizations of Ace Combat

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot sections of the Ace Combat series articles. As such, it is duplicative, massively trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well this page has needed clean up for a long time, just never got around to doing it. This worked well when we had a nation's page. I guess we could try to move some of this info to other pages. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated Judge. Rogue Commander (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- WilliamH (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot move to keep an article based on being a verifiable topic with real world importance when it has established no notability, no real world importance, and thus no notability. It, in fact, the reason I am nominating it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Organizations that appear in multiple recognizable games that sell millions of copies around the world are covered in the games themselves and in published strategy guides and that are familiar to millions of people are notable by any reasonable standard. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is simply false; Wikipedia has standards of verifiability, and this article has yet to find even one reference that would prove notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have presented plenty of references that prove notability. You can claim a bananna is not a bananna, but that doesn't mean it isn't.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have presented not one link to any cite demonstrating actual notability, not now, and never in any previous AFD. You have linked to random google searches and to "encyclopedias" that are really pure plot repetition and which you have no idea what the contents are. You must Prove notability, not indirectly suggest other editors are being lazy for not seeing these "references" you have discovered. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is look at the many published guides that cover the series for reliable sources and also consider the many published reviews of the relevant games as well. There needs to be an urgent and compelling reason to delete an article and when there's realistic potential we default to keep.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Constantly increasing the quality of the encyclopedia is a very compelling and urgent reason to eliminate content that fails to meet out policies. And again, you refer to "guides" you have never read, and have no idea their contents, for proof of verifiability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I whole heartedly agree that constantly increasing the quality of the encyclopedia is key to these discussions, but my opinion is that it does not definitively fail policies and that we provide a real service by covering this information in some details. I've read enough strategy guides to know what kind of information they cover.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Ace Combat after a chainsaw cleaning. This has some stuff we can use, just too much detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge a few paragraphs as stated above. Notability is not asserted, so it doesn't require an article either way. TTN (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's mostly filled with fancruft. Martarius (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:ITSCRUFT and Do not call things cruft. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable, independent sources are cited in this article. The GOAL of this encyclopedia is to record secondary and tertiary reporting, not to provide a means to report primary results.  When the subject of this list is covered in reliable, secondary publications, we may keep it.  The parent subject (Ace Combat) does not provide notability to daughter elements.  The article does not establish notability from sourcing itself. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia and "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So why did you reply to me with those two quotes? Protonk (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In you post above, you capitalized your personal opinion of what the goal of encyclopedia is. As you and I have exchanged friendly quotations before, I thought you might be interested in what other encyclopedists laid out as the goals of such projects.  As such it shows that a notable aspect of a notable game series is an element of human knowledge with real world interest to readers and editors and thus we provide humanity with a service by covering such knowledge in a comprehensive fashion.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Major aspects or settings in major series or games or the like are suitable as subarticles. I assume this one is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. This is the right sort of combination article. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content.  DGG (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Correction As per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, WP:NOTE, and WP:GAMECRUFT, new articles should not be spun out if they don't meet the WP:GNG. Also see the essay WP:INHERITED. Randomran (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is inherited and Do not call things cruft. -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't. There's no policy or guideline that says notability is inherited, except for a few careful exceptions in WP:MUSIC and WP:BOOK, but there is no such exception for games. And kindly stop trying to censor me. Randomran (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is and there are always exceptions. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An editor comment is not a policy or guideline. Show me a policy or guideline. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is the essay you cited about inherited notability, which oddly enough gives "Delete UNESCO can not be notable because it's the UN which is notable, and notability is not inherited." as an example of an argument to avoid. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I produced WP:VGSCOPE and WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and contrasted them with WP:MUSIC and WP:BOOK. Notability cannot be inherited for this article, because every guideline that we have is against that. Randomran (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: an incomprehensible mix of backstory, contextless plot summaries, and speculation (ex. "This organization seems to be an allegory to the League of Nations created by Versailles Treaty."). The Ace Combat Wiki does a better job organizing and maintaining this information without coming into conflict with Wikipedia's values. Nifboy (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: completely fails the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Article is completely written with primary sources, and violates WP:NOT by going beyond a concise summary, and for this to be but a concise part of larger coverage of the fictional work. Related to notability: there are no secondary sources that cover this topic enough to provide any WP:NOT information to make this comply with wikipedia policy. Randomran (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The GNG is totally disputed at present and it is consistent with what Wikipedia is. -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N is not totally disputed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at it's talk page, alternate proposals, and a whole category of editors, suggests that it is. -- Happy Festival of [[Castor and Pollux]!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And look at how each effort to replace or remove it goes down in flames. Calling WP:N totally disputed is either hopelessly mistaken at best or a blatant lie at worst. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The variety of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability demonstrate it's lack of support among many members of the community, including admins and others who have been around longer than I have. -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. In the meantime, it enjoys a consensus of support from the vast majority of the community, and the vocal minority of opposition has had little luck shifting more to their view. WP:CON doesn't, never did, and hopefully never will necessarily mean "unanimity". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless we poll the community, I see no evidence that "the vast majority" actually supports it, rather only a vocal minority in certain discussions. Far more editors have worked on say this article or have come to viist it than have commented in the AfD.  I assume in good faith that those editors and readers believe the article is consistent with what they as members of the community believe Wikipedia is and count them among those arguing to keep and who believe the article is notable enough for our project.  -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're so sure that WP:N does not have consensus support, start an RFC. I can't imagine it'll be successful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks on the talk page that Masem and Randomran are already working on one. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. In the meantime, don't do deceptive crap like describing it as "totally disputed" when people are still figuring out how they're going to draft an RFC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to pretend that something that is moving toward multiple drafts of RfCs following varied and diverse proposals for reform is not disputed. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not disrupt AFDs with by describing guidelines as "totally disputed" because someone is considering proposing an RFC that may or may not result in changes to the guideline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not one person considering it, it is multiple people in multiple threads on the talk pages. And again, as pertains to this particular subject, organizations that appear in multiple games that are covered in reliable sources are reasonably notable.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a discussion somewhere that resulted in a consensus to mark WP:N as historical or failed? Until you can respond to that with "Yes, and here it is," do not disrupt AFD with this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no consensus regarding the fine points of notability, because one would have to think that fictional organizations appearing in a mainstream franchise that can and should be better sourced is reasonably understood as notable. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been a guideline since November 2006. Now, did you have some sort of argument that had something to do with this article, or were you going to continue with cloudcookoolander descriptions of long-standing guidelines? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you still trying to keep the discussion off-topic? If you notice in my two posts above, both my final sentences comment on why I think the article is notable.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. What reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The combination of published strategy guides and reviews of the games that mention the organization. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which strategy guides and which reviews? Surely you wouldn't waste everyone's time with the uninformed claim that sources that can be used to write this article exist without actually finding some. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Any of the guides that turn up at or reviews that turn up at  can be mined for information.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nuh uh. I didn't ask for a broadly-worded Google search. I asked for a single reference that gave us a seed for writing an article. You haven't yet done that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I believe you are fully capable of finding these references in those sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * People are not capable of finding them because they do not exist, and you cannot find them because they do not exist. Your claim that they exist is completely baseless supposition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I find the searches a little bit more promising if we type in the organization names, but then that's a different discussion, i.e. whether we cover all the organizations as a list or as a single article. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:NOT, no coverage by reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 08:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into one article Merge the four supporting articles into one Universe of Ace Combat article Thedarxide (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. Eusebeus (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break: The Grand Merge and which variation do we go with
Now that notability and out of universe context has been established for the various aspects of Ace Combat, a proposal has been made to merge these sections into a new article. So, here are some ideas: 1) keep the articles as separate articles; 2) merge and redirect them all to Universe of Ace Combat, or 3) keep this article separate, but merge the militaries and nations articles. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Begging the question. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I figure it's best to see how others think we should go about a merge rather than just doing it unilaterally. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, no. I'm referring to the same thing AMiB is.  Notability 'across the various articles' has not been established yet we are operating on the presumption that it has. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been to me and the others arguing to keep. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But arguments to keep do not notability make. I accept freely that the Ace combat series is notable.  There is an article covering that subject already.  We are making a different claim to say that, distinct from the Ace combat series of games, the fictional universe of ace combat is notable.  That is not an impossible claim.  Middle Earth is certainly notable.  But in order to make that claim we need to show that there exist independent sources that cover the ace combat universe in significant detail--specifically not in passing in order to make claims about the Ace Combat series.  In other words, a brief summary for a review should not be used to justify the existence of an article about the fictional universe.  Forgive me if I am wrong but I don't see that rather extraordinary claim being made and supported by independent, reliable sources in these articles or these discussions.  Hence the suggestion that we are operating from a non-established premise. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A merge discussion is different from a keep discussion. We know that the various Ace Combat games have been previewed and reviewed with attention spent on specific aspects (whether it be weapons or pilots); thus in an article on the universe of Ace Combat or that say merges the characters and militaries with the nations, we can combine these sources to show collectively notability.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that notability and out of universe context has been established for the various aspects of Ace Combat
 * Where exactly did you do that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Across the various discussions. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did you do that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The various places (I am not going to re-link, repeat myself) in which I cited sources that caused at least one or more other editors to start getting the idea for a merge of the various articles under discussion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two people have said, "Where on Earth did you establish that?" Presumably, you haven't done a good job of establishing it; you've done such a bad job of establishing it that I also want to merge this article and you have failed to convince me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to merge the article, then what are your ideas/suggestions for how we go about making the merge? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Slash this down heavily and upmerge this to the series article, like I said. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a fourth option AMiB alluded to, which I find vastly preferable: Merge to the series and various game articles, because, from what I can tell, very few of the nations, organizations, characters, or militaries are present in more than one game. Or we can delete them all for pretty much the same reasons, and let the games' plot summaries take care of it. Nifboy (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should delete the non-notable cruft, seeing as this topic hasn't been demonstrated as notable. Saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Prove it, with references. Randomran (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN and Do not call things cruft. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN. Don't just assert notability without appropriate sources. And I'll stop calling this cruft when you prove that it's notable. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already done that for the sake of the merge discussion; I am not going to keep repeating myself. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes three people who've asked you how it's notable and you've answered with "I did already, didn't you see?" No, you didn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At the same time, no one has convinced me that it is not notable. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody's here to convince you; you're not even listening to requests to clarify your position. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've clarified my position multiple times; the various aspects of Ace Combat (multiple appearances, because multiple games and a recognizable game series at that) are covered in published strategy guides as reliable primary sources and in reviews and previews as reliable secondary sources. I believe as do others in these discussions that we have enough content to use somehow whether it be outright keeping or some kind of merge rather than outright deleting and I am open to ideas as to how we can best go baout doing that.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Link to some references that have seen fit to comment on any of the organizations/militaries/nations/whatever in this series. You've vaguely waved at "Well maybe we can use these!" but never actually proposed a single reference that isn't the games or a game guide that we could use to write an article. You want to glom all of these into one article that will just end up back at AFD with exactly the same problems, and that's not really a solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true, as I have posted links to articles that cover weapons or pilots, for example. My idea would be to merge all to the list of nations article and divide that into subsections that connect the militaries, organizations, and characters under their respective countries.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The former is a copy-paste from a press release, and is nothing but a bare list of objects appearing in one game. The latter is about the characters of one single game, fits neatly into the AC6 article but nowhere else, and says nothing else about the setting.
 * What's more, militaries and organizations in AC are heavily international or cross-national. Organizing them by country would amount to massive plot summary organized in an in-universe way, would involve a catch-all "international" being half of this bloated awful article you're proposing, and STILL wouldn't solve the fact that these articles are all plot summary and have fuck all for decent sources.
 * I am reading the things you find in Google searches; are you? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it is coverage in sources other than the games, which reveals that these places are interested in these aspects of the games. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IT ISN'T COVERAGE OF THE SUBJECTS OF THESE ARTICLES. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Mathmo Talk 05:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Seems to be a significant part of a notable game series, and orthogonal to it so it fits better in its own article than the Ace Combat one. I think the article is a bit of a mess because it doesn't provide much context (i.e. there is no big picture, just detail) and I am not sure how this could be fixed. I would also support the merging of the articles into Universe of Ace Combat but I have big problems with the level of detail in the Militaries of Ace Combat article and the scope of the List of Ace Combat characters. Jll (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per User:A Man In Black --T-rex 22:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As if this page needed its discussion stimulated in the first place. Nifboy (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Okay, I am not exactly sure how to go about this. This was created to deal with the organizations that are the backbone of the series, and I wouldn't know what to do with the info if this page could't be kept. Much of the info under Neucom and General Resource could probably be added to Ace Combat 3's article under plot, though I haven't got around to it. If someone else could handle it I would appreciate it (and I am asking this of an Ace Combat fan who is familiar with the story!). Other then that, I don't know what to do.Rogue Commander (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion nor evidence of real-world notability. Reasons for deletion include "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (Wikipedia is not a game guide) and "Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" (no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). --Stormie (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The non-game guide material asserts and presents evidence of real-world notability and there really aren't any valid reasons for deletion given that it meets the notability guidelines and has sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subejct. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, you are confusing the fact that you can find a topic by Googling with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Stormie (talk) 21:23, 20 July 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.