Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hive (Resident Evil)


 * 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 Keep. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The Hive (Resident Evil)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Resident Evil: Genesis 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is a site from a notable game/film series played/seen by millions of people internationally. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, and you need to show its notable on its own to sustain its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost the entire film of Resident Evil is set in The Hive. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it appears in the game series, and is a major location in the films. The data needs clean up, however has been referenced in numerous video games including Outbreak, Umbrella Chronicles, and Resident Evil 4. Empty2005 (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But it needs to demonstrate actual referencing, like development and creation information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, there isn't much info known about construction and development as it was briefly mentioned in Apocalypse, however there is more info given out in the first film, which suggests that the facility was the HQ for finding out the T-Virus, and is also important as it is the origin of the outbreak in the film series, considering 3 films have been released, which reference the facility in all 3 films, with a sequel also planned. And the outbreak has also played a major role in Extinction, as a replica facility was recreated in Las Vegas, and also features almost the exact laser corridor sequence as the first movie. So this article has enough information regarding the facility, however if you feel like pestering and nominating articles for deletion, why not try, The Simpson House, considering not much is known about it's construction, or why not Arkham Asylum while your at it. Empty2005 (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if following wikipedia guidelines is such a bother, but some people feel articles actually have to be good at some point to stay on wikipedia. And as you point out, nothing is known, so it has no hope of being improved. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge could arguably be a part of the Resident Evil article, but is definitely too noteable for deletion. --.Tom. (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no valid argument for merge. Firstly, it has no primary sources to verify its content, so merger will just move this problem elsewhere. Secondly, it has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. Lastly it has no encyclopedic content, as it primarily plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow talk about aload of shit, why not place 742 Evergreen Terrace on afd?, it also has no sources to back up the content, and it pretty much uses plot points aswell! Yeah thats what i thought ! Empty2005 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Knowitall 10:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't see why you'd delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrx9898 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then read the nomination and discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then, as far as I can see, the page has a fare amount of information. There are also various references. I'd say that you shouldn't delete the page and just clean it up. Mrx9898 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But if its not notable, what is there to save? How do you "clean up" an article that cannot be referenced? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is notable. It's the primary setting of the first resident evil film, and also features again in extinction. I think it's also referenced to in some of the games? even so, I think it's good enough to remain an article. If you wanted to merge it into the resident evil article then you could, but I think it would make it look sloppy, and long. Mrx9898 (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the primary setting for an important game is notable. What is being challenged here? That it is an important game? that it is the primary setting? that a primary setting is notable? I was at first skeptical of some of the attempts to erase the distinction between primary and secondary sources, but if it is being used to create artificial barriers to articles on topics like these, I am glad to see that most of us are becoming more flexible. The nominations seems to be using the same arguments for both the notable and the les notable elements. That's against the core principle, that we are here to build an encyclopedia and the guidelines are intended to guide us, not to prevent common sense. DGG (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I doubt your agrument holds much water; without reliable secondary sources, this fictional location has no notability outside of the game. The artifical barrier you are refereing to is called Reality. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * weakest of Deletes Liberty City is notable because it became part of pop culture outside of the game. This hasn't really, and if it has, we need Reliable Sources to document that.--CastAStone|(talk) 18:29, 6 December 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.