Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequence breaking


 * 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 debate was keep RasputinAXP   c  14:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sequence breaking
Strong Keep This is not really like speedrunning, it's its own thing. 1:30 PM, 20 May, 2006 Wikimaster2

Delete for being an unencyclopedic entry on a non-noteworthy phenomenon. - Rikoshi 23:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that it could be fixed up or merged. But I don't think it needs to be deleted. Yanksox 23:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep might be more useful merged into Speed run, but the sourcing worries me. Kotepho 01:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Speed run. Big E 1977  03:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Speed run - it's a noteworthy term of speed runs, but probably not notable enough to have an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I'd rather say Keep or, only failing that, Merge, per Aguerriero's reasoning. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Second choice is redirect per Bige1977. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This cannot be merged with speedrun. While some sequence-breaking is speedrunning, they are two different things. Sequence-breaking could be as simple as the ability to go backward in the old Pitfall game. Good gaming topic that needs to be covered here.  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 15:04, 18 May 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.