Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Forest Rocket Facility


 * 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   Redirected to Half-Life 2: Episode Two. No valid reasons to keep given, but in the absence of a suitable merge page, let it go to the main article so that the history is preserved in the remote chance that an encyclopedic article could be written. Black Kite 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

White Forest Rocket Facility

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

This fictional location in a game has only 144 Google hits, remarkably few. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Good Article. Plus the google hits doesn't really matter.  Trees Rock MyGoal 02:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. (???? Above) Reminding User:Trees Rock about the "good page" gimmick, Wikipedia doesn't keep pages based on their quality.  This isn't notable at all.  Sure, it's from a popular game... but it's nowhere near a fictionalized city page like Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto).  I think this should just be redirected to Half-Life 2: Episode Two. phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 03:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you think if you saw an article on a White Forest Rocket Facility in The Encyclopædia Britannica? You would expect to see an article about a real rocket facility.  As the White Forest facility is actually within a fictional universe, let's merge it into the article on the fictional universe itself – in this case, Half-Life 2: Episode Two, if I understand correctly.  Also be sure to do a history merge (to comply with GFDL).  69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete actually, excluding Wikipedia, there are actually seven Google hits, none of which appear suitable as a source. Not notable. Jakew (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this notable article as consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games, fictional locations, etc. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As this appears semi-related to the AFD for Black Mesa, I have suggested that all the Half-Life location articles be merged to Locations in the Half-Life series, as it is not necessarily the specific locations but the general use of such locations in the series that is notable. (More details on the BMesa AFD). --M ASEM  22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can sources be found for any of the material, if it were to be merged? If so, I'll support this proposal. Jakew (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * People have found sources for Black Mesa Research Facility, and I found some for Ravenholm through a casual quicksearch. I don't think all of them are notable (such as this one), but I'm pretty sure that a better encyclopedic article in both quality and notability could be done if they were all merged instead of all separate. --M ASEM  16:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll say merge regarding the content of this article provided that at least one reliable source can be found. Jakew (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Half-Life 2: Episode Two per WP:FICT I see no evidence that this is so abundantly notable that it warrants an independent article. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into a locations of Half-Life article. There's nothing independently notable here, but a far more concise version of the information, with a real-world persepective, can be stored in an article discussing the concept of Half-life locations. -- Sabre (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no primary or secondary sources, this article fails WP:V. The article is entirely comprised of a summary of a back-story from the game, and so fails WP:NOT. There is no evidence of notability outside the game, so this topic fails WP:N. Overall, I would say there is justification for keeping or merging the content of this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The game itself it appears in is a primary source. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know. It could be the game, or the official game guide or some other source, like a fansite. No sources are cited so I guess we will never know what the source is, and whether what has been written is correct.--Gavin Collins (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As indicated in the nomination, the articles does get some google hits, which means that the article can and should be inline cited, but that's a "so fix it", not a "we'll never know". The truth is out there!  Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you read my comment of 18:49, 18 May 2008, you'll see that there are only 7 hits, none of which are reliable sources. Jakew (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What about published game guides or magazines? If it's even somewhat likely these exist, we should give the contributors the benefit of the doubt here and allow them to keep searching without having to start the article all over from scratch.  Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to prove a negative; all we can do is to make a reasonable effort to determine whether or not this topic meets our inclusion criteria. If you're prepared to delve through published game guides or magazines to find sources, then I will of course applaud your dedication. At the moment, however, the preponderance of evidence is such that the topic isn't notable, so the right thing to do is to delete the article. Please bear in mind that, per WP:BURDEN, sources should really have been added at the time of creation. If evidence later emerges that the subject is notable, then the article can be restored or rewritten through the usual processes. In any event, there are strong indications that the article is original research based upon primary sources, and would probably need to be completely rewritten if sources did emerge. Jakew (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "it's up to the delete voters to prove it isn't notable". Ideally sources should be added when an article is created, however, many good articles started out as unreferenced stubs and in some cases sources were not added until months, maybe even years later.  We do not have a deadline.  I am not, by the way, opposed to a merge and redirect without deletion in the interim with no prejudice to unredirect as additional sources are made available.  I just see no real gain here in outright deletion.  Regards, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LGRdC, that's a single off-hand comment made by someone in closing an AfD. It's not WP policy, and since negative proof is a logical impossibility, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to prove that something isn't notable. All that can reasonably be expected is evidence of failure to prove notability. And that's not quite the same thing. Jakew (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a low number of Google hits is not a valid reason for deletion, see ATA. Wikipedia is not paper. Using Half-Life 2 and its episodes as primary sources, one can write an article on this subject that's verifiable, neutral, and that contains no original research. Half-Life 2 is a notable game. This could at least be merged into a list of locations per the editing policy. --Pixelface (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest, how would you propose to meet these requirements using primary sources alone? "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." &mdash; WP:V "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." &mdash; WP:NOR Jakew (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Pixelface (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, merge nothing, as there's no content worth keeping. User:Krator (t c) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per ongoing consensus that pure in-game material with no secondary sources and no assertion of real-world notability is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. --Stormie (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2008 (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.