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 of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very POV and totally unreferenced. I placed POV and unreferenced tags on them around a month ago and there has been no progress on that front. It is going to be a haven for those that dislike the game for one reason or another, and presents a very biased view using weasel words. A criticism section in Halo 2 (which already exists) could easily cover the important aspects of any negative reaction from, or reported by, the press, and this separate article is not required. violet/riga (t) 18:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I Disagree! I must object to these aligations! The article is neutral in every possible way! It never once cites any of these as facts and always refers to them as opinions of players or posibilities! I don't see how you consider this bias! Deleting this is just another way of silencing the people! A narrow-minded view of Halo 2 is just what we're trying to combat! I don't disagree on the faltering neutrality that you may see, but I STRONGLY dissagree with it being put up for deletion! - User:NLUT
• Keep There is a list of sources on the bottom. Any Halo player can see that these are true, and it's only a matter of finding references, there are probably references that apply to this. A criticism section in Halo 2 was exactly the kind of thing that makes the article too large and leads to vandalism of the article, and having it all on another page will let people sort it out better.--Zxcvbnm 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? A mention of a bonus DVD, a link to a review added after the AfD started and links to forums (which have now been removed) are not adequate sources! A short, properly-cited section in Halo 2 would be much better. violet/riga (t) 20:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - topic is not worth a full article. It is absurdly POV to suggest that this is one of the most important topics related to Halo. Phil Sandifer 19:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think the article needs to be cleaned up but i dont think it needs to be deleted --Amxitsa 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't need an article filled with the opinions of Halo 2 players — we need verifiable sources, not original research from gaming blogs. —Cleared as filed. 22:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fancruft, not encyclopedic. WP is not place to promote judgements. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek --kingboyk 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and merge any verifiable information into the criticism section in Halo 2 (and yes I'm aware this is probably a spin-off of the original article). 23skidoo 04:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into original article for now. I'm more tolerant of this kind of POV-forking than some people are here, and the game is big enough that I could see it going with the other things in criticisms category, but not in this form. As indicated above, it needs much better references and sourcing than it has now if you want to justify it as a separate article. Daniel Case 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV critique with weasel words galore. --FuriousFreddy 11:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect. Keep the redirect to discourage recreation. Separate criticism sections are one thing (if there's a good summary in the main article), this just isn't at that stage - David Gerard 15:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How is this deletion worthy again? "While Halo 2 has won many awards and raked in colossal profits, debate has risen over the merits of such success, especially when faced with comparisons to the immense impact on the console market that the first Halo had. Many gamers even credit Halo CE with single-handedly propping up the Microsoft Xbox's image and sales through its first generation of games." Oh and btw, I had an article on the Halo2sucks.com site; And I made it clear on the article that it wasn't finished and it still got deleted! Shady_Joe 6 Febuary 2006
• Merge or keep. Kappa 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merging would only recreate the original problem. This page was created to move this POV-rant off of the main article, and I'd rather not have this debate wind up in one massive step backward. Yes, there should be a mention that there's contraversy. This mention is already on Halo 2's main page, and needs nothing else. Keep that mention, delete the link and this page. (see also: Bungie repeatedly having to put their own forums on near-lockdown because of h2sucks and "MLGrules" supporters). Gspawn 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We often have Criticism articles, like Criticism of Wikipedia and Half-Life 2 controversies and criticisms, I do however think that this article is worst than the 2 aforementioned, but still it's probably worthy. - Hahnchen 21:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Inside this article there is a decent article struggling to get out. Needs work (which it may never get, I dunno) but it's not that bad. Herostratus 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.