Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarth (Deadlock)


 * 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   redirect. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tarth (Deadlock)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Race within a videogame. No third party reliable sources exist. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - no explanation as to why the default position (merging) for character articles is unacceptable here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect immediately The problem with saying merge is that after AfD gets closed nobody does it. Redirect it and someone can add the content. Miami33139 (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Redirect: We have to assume the closing admin will actually do it, and even if it were missed that's not an excuse to not suggest the proper thing. Redirects are for things people might look for or think are normal articles but we happen to have them listed in a different way. If it's not appropriate as its own article it really shouldn't be a redirect, and per our normal consensus of "what counts" as notable as sub articles, a race is no different than places/locations, abilities, characters of most games, etc. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing useful to merge. Target article already contains an excessive amount of fictional information. Not a useful redirect name: Tarth already exists as a redirect which can be, uh, redirected to Deadlock: Planetary Conquest. Marasmusine (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Deadlock: Planetary Conquest, as the topic is covered there. No reason not to redirect it as far as I can see. --Taelus (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From how "Other projects" on WP:DEL reads, it seems only articles suited for sister Wikipedia can be given a redirect vs other options. Makes sense. Are there standards on created redirects? I fear it would be bad precedent to welcome people to create new articles for every last sub-category or name of something within a game (or anywhere on Wikipedia, mind you) if the official response is to redirect it all... but since I very literally don't know the answer to this, a bottom line in policy or examples of how this has happened in other articles in the past would be great. Since all I could find was the vague guideline I mentioned, I'm entirely in favor of the redirect is someone can cite policy/etc. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These are good points to consider, however I believe that since the article already exists and there is a relevant redirect target which contains relevant information, a redirect would be the best option. We should remember that the article may be linked on non-Wikimedia sites, and thus without a redirect we would be breaking those links. Redirects are cheap, so as long as the information exists somewhere, I think it is harmless to have the redirect. If this was proposed as a redirect to create I think your points would rule against creating it, but since the page already exists it may have external links pointing at it we don't know about. --Taelus (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. Changed my original comment :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objectionion to a redirect, after all. Marasmusine (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2009 (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.