Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiberium (video game)


 * 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 to Cancelled_Command_%26_Conquer_games. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiberium (video game)

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

Cancelled Video game, all content is included in Cancelled Command & Conquer games, which is a more appropriate place for this subject. QueenCake (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Speedy merge and redirect. There's nothing to merge, so just redirect it in my opinion. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect, redundant. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cancelled Command & Conquer games. I do not know why this was spun out from that article in the first place. MuZemike 22:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Somewhat notable cancelled game. As I remember, there was a lot of hype about this game when it was announced. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - I just looked at Cancelled Command & Conquer games, and does anyone think that perhaps that page should be at AFD instead of this? I ask because the only sources in that article are for Tiberium. MuZemike 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a Google test for one of the other games and only got 30 hits. Further, all the content (not just Tiberium's) exists in other articles already. That said, the article has encyclopedic value assuming sources exist that are invisible to Google. SharkD (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see any reason why the article needs to be deleted. The sources look good. There are no NPOV issues. Etc. SharkD (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep by default. One way or another this content does belong on WP, whether it's here, the other article mentioned or somewhere else entirely, but the way to organize that information is a discussion which should be held between editors trying to get the right information in the right place, not during an AFD. Someoneanother 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect as duplicate content. ThuranX (talk) 00:47, 7 February 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.