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 as original research, unclear notability. Mangled grammar → unlikely search term → no redirect. Grand Roi, all of Wikipedia is a work in progress, and yet we do delete parts of it occasionally.  Sandstein  17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbitaly Drop Shock Troopers[edit]

Orbitaly Drop Shock Troopers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Recreation of a previously deleted article. None of the information presented is cited - it's all unsourced original research. Probably isn't notable enough to require a content fork from Halo (series) or Halo 2. csaribay (talk) 00:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'd say redirect to Factions of Halo#United Nations Space Command, like ODST does, but orbitaly isn't actually a word and this seems a very unlikely typo. Pburka (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I didn't notice that particular article you mentioned. I'm in favor of redirection, even if the typo is unlikely. csaribay (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not even properly spelled, let along asserting any real world notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as new article clearly a work in progress per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Concerns about spelling fall under Wikipedia:SOFIXIT, not deletion rationales. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does the subject really require a WP:CFORK from Factions of Halo#United Nations Space Command? I don't necessarily dismiss the inclusion of this content, but I don't believe this particular subject requires its own article where a simple expansion of the above article accomplishes sensible inclusion. csaribay (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case then I would recommend at worst moving the article to rename it and then merging and redirecting with deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:58, 8 June 2008 (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.