Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfen (Star Fox series)


 * 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 Delete. --Oxymoron83 10:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wolfen (Star Fox series)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wow, how trivial can you get? This article is just an in-universe regurgitation of the plot of several Star Fox games, and has no notability outside of that article. As such, this is just duplication of that material in an unencyclopedic way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares? What's wrong with leaving it up, the main Star Fox article doesn't cover the details of stuff like this. And tell that TTN asshole to stop merging every single SF related-article with the SF page, it has no relevance to anything described in the merged pages. 69.238.168.72 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The details are trivial junk that have no place in a quality encyclopedia. And user TTN is a fantastic contributer to wikipedia, and if you continue this uncivil tone you will be blocked, clear? And by the way, anon, if you want to argue about wikipedia policy, cite the policy which supports your position, otherwise your opinion is irrelevent. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Eliz  81 (C)  09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable item from the video game. A brief mention in the parent article would be enough, but even that is debatable.  E LIMINATOR JR  20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because the fictional topic fails to utilize secondary sources to provide real-world context, which is necessary to determine the topic's notability. Without doing this, it's merely in-universe information, a violation of WP:PLOT. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:43, 4 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.