Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft universe

StarCraft universe was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep 
 * 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 - kept

StarCraft universe
Virtually every bit of information on this page already exists in the article on Starcraft itself; therefore this is redundant. Delete. Indrian 05:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Err, that's because the information on the StarCraft article under the "Story" section should go here instead of on the Starcraft article. The StarCraft article should be more about the game, while this one focuses more on the lore. By the way, are you aware of how does the different articles about fictional universes work? Could you please add the tag +VfD to the edit summary when you are VfD'ing an article?   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 08:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. Merge any useful information that isn't already duplicated with StarCraft. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:49, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reason necessary. It's depressing that there's a 'Wing Commander' fictional universe on Wikipedia as well, especially given that 'Wing Commander' is now ancient, irrelevant history. Twenty years from now a small Palestinian boy will be reading Wikipedia, and will wonder why people bothered with such trivial nonsense. This might seem a bit harsh, but it's freezing cold where I am and somebody across the street is drilling some wood and it angers me. -Ashley Pomeroy 15:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. Errr... Yes, thanks for that. Will somebody please think of the children?! As an aside, what is The Quatrain of Seven Steps? A) Factual, neutral information on an ancient work of Chinese fiction; B) Fancruft about Chinese doggerel on bean soup, wholly uninteresting to small Palestinian boys? JRM 17:47, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * I do not see anyone on this page saying that Starcraft should not have a page, so your analogy does not apply. Indrian 18:15, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, lets delete all the Pokemon articles also since 100 years from now on they will be trivial! Please? Are you aware of how many StarCraft copies have been sold? Are you aware of how many people play StarCraft daily? Are you aware of how many fan stories have been written about StarCraft? Time to break the bubble dude!   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 02:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Look at the discussion page. People are serious about this. That others don't like it and don't want it to appear in their encyclopedia is noted, and we look forward to their contributions as well. And what Joseph said, but minus the inhospitable tone. How about giving people a chance to properly factor out information before declaring them contributa non grata? JRM 17:47, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Check the discussion page again, every entry on that page was made in August as was every change to the main article. It is now December, four months later and nothing has happened.  The article is now on VFD.  If these people care enough about the article they weill reshape it in a way that makes it acceptable, and the article will survive the VFD process.  You can feel free to do this yourself if you like as well.  I have no particular axe to grind against Starcraft, which is a game I quite like, just with redundant articles that provide no particular insight into anything. Indrian 18:19, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * You can feel free to do this yourself if you like as well. Yes, and so can you. But you don't care so much that you would do more than vote Delete, and I don't care so much that I would do more than vote Keep, so it all evens out in the end. Despite what we would all like, this is still Votes for Deletion, not Encouragement for Work. And I'm sounding terribly jaded and unproductive right now, so I'm going to do something constructive elsewhere. No bad feelings, and happy editing. JRM 19:20, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * So now everything that is not acceptable to you should be deleted? Oh dear... dead to stubs, they are so evil!   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 02:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge, else Delete. Wiki is not a gaming manual. Really. Wyss 19:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the StarCraft universe article is not about gaming, but rather about the lore/story behind StarCraft.   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 02:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete. Andre ( talk )A| 20:07, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apparently the people who work on these topics have decided there is a need for this, and I couldn't contradict them if that's what they think. They must know better than I do. Everyking 20:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I really did expect there to be more (ie any) content to the article, given how vitriolic some of its defenders are being. There's hardly anything there, though.  Merge and redirect into StarCraft.  -Sean Curtin 23:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's because people have been adding the info to the StarCraft article rather than in here. StarCraft article should be = to the StarCraft game (the original game). StarCraft universe should be = lore/story. Capisce now sir? I simply do not have the time nor the desire right now to do the moves. It would be nice if you would do it for us instead of criticizing it.   &mdash;Joseph | Talk 02:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Joseph, please stay civil. Being condescending to people isn't helping. Assume good faith, and assume people are voting on what they genuinely feel is best for Wikipedia, even if you might not agree with their opinions. JRM 03:01, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this actually does have potential to become an article on its own, even if it needs filling out. Merging at this point would seem to be unhelpful to me. Shane King 03:56, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. JRM and Joseph both make excellent points above, but they've fallen on deaf ears. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Joseph's point - the orginal game should have a seperate article to the in-depth story surrounding it - LiquidXY 15:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * keep but break out the info on StarCraft universe from StarCraft, so that one story is about the game and one is about the lore. And you StarCraft folk get together on this and get your articles straight because sure as heck I'm not going to be of any help in writing the articles. Pedant 23:05, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * keep, I agree with Pedant, --Aaron Einstein 04:19, Dec 12, 2004 (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.

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.