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The result was Nominator withdrawn (leaning toward keep) with "in-universe" still an issue (& so tagged). SkierRMH (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strogg[edit]

Strogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability, and is thus an in-universe repetition of plot points from the various Quake games plot sections. It is entirely duplicative, and doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy keep. The Strogg are the chief antagonist of the massively popular Quake game series, particularly Quake II, Quake 4, and the new game just released recently, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, which is doing extremely well. The notability of this subject cannot really be in question (which would be a valid issue for an AfD); it clearly is notable. That the article does not assert its own notability is a valid issue which should be corrected, but is not a reasonable criterion for deletion here -- the obvious solution is simply to include references (what would they be, by the way, just links to the idsoftware.com site indicating that they're the bad guys)? There are commonalities between this site article and the other Quake-related sites articles, but that's not a bad thing; this article isn't purely repetitious if you're familiar with the series. Xihr (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, game related websites would not count; you wouldn need creator commentary, demonstration of fan reaction to the Strogg, the design or creation process, stuff like that, only then could the Strogg be said to be notable in an encyclopedic sense. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course those things exist, and you have to know that, so you're essentially admitting that the AfD is unwarranted. (If you know so little about the Quake universe, you should have stayed away from the AfD.) P.S., Are you going to bicker with every single keep vote that gets made in one of your AfD nominations? Xihr (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article for deletion process is a discussion and an opportunity to assert notability or the lack thereof. And if a good number of reliable out of universe sources exist, please post them here so I can withdraw my deletion and we can make a good article, but if you can't, please acknowledge that it indeed has no notability, which would make sense as it has shown none so far. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources such as this, this, this and this? I alluded to this in the Doom enemies AFD, but how can you possible support Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series whilst nominating other such lists for deletion. It seems to say that "in-universe repetition of plot points" is fine, if its sandwiched between some generalised character creation and reception paragraphs. - hahnchen 00:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurogamer article is pretty strong, but that makes me feel that a "development of doom" or "universe of Doom" article could use this information, but not necessarily its own article. I think we should look for a merge target for this information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice goalpost shift. Xihr (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being honest! It shows the topic has some notability instead of none. However, I would love to withdraw the whole thing and keep it as is, with the new references added of course, if we could just establish a bit more notability for it, maybe like reaction of reviewers at IGN and other development stuff. Otherwise, I think I'll just withdraw it and start a merge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for references in order to withdraw the AfD. After given four, they're still not enough, and you want more. That's a goalpost shift. Further, your hypocrisy on these matters as demonstrated by User:Hahnchen with respect to the Castlevania article -- in which it is impossible to assert more notability than a vastly more popular Quake-related article -- makes it awfully hard to maintain the assumption of good faith here; you appear to have an agenda. Xihr 21:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, just stop the crying and the name calling, it is unseemly. I will say yet again, some notability has been established, so it should be merged, not deleted. I would ask you instead of making accusations, take a moment and get a few more references, and we can close this happily as a notable article. Judgesurreal777 22:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been given more than enough satisfactory references. They weren't enough. So why bother? Xihr 01:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You have changed my mind, I don't think this article should be deleted any more, that is a lot! As you seem to be very good at finding references for this, I'd just thought it would be good to get a few more so we can keep the article as is, and not merge it. That's all, if that's going to cause trauma, I guess we'll try to pick a merger target. Judgesurreal777 03:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I think you, not being a new user, would know by now that four good references does not make a whole article, we need a bit more. I guess we can take this discussion outside of AFD, but I thought we would like to help build up this article.

Calling an AfD on the basis of notability means that the notability of the article is in question. I've already pointed out why it clearly cannot be, and why an AfD is inappropriate -- and your involvement with Castlevania-related AfDs seems to confirm that you know this. You're even half-granting the point, so you're just looking for excuses not to withdraw your AfD at this point (which, by the looks of it, will very likely fail anyway). So by all means, keep pushing forward and asking for ever more references, even as they're given, but this is all just gamesmanship. Xihr 07:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was very much in question until you provided references, and as you will see below, I have withdrawn the AFD. In the future, I would recommend reading what I have typed, as you continue to repeat the same things over and over that have no relation to what I have already said. Judgesurreal777 08:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal777 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability and reliable references demonstrated by hahnchen. It is long enough to need its own article. In-universe style could use editing, but not deletion. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - with these criteria one should try suggest the deletion of the Klingon page. Duplication only is a criteria when an entire page is duplicated, not when bits of information are collected into a new consistent whole. Wikimam 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATOR WITHDRAWING - Notability, in at least a limited fashion, has been established, which was the reason for this AFD. Judgesurreal777 03:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in light of the withdrawal by the nom, plus any of the content concerns are just ((sofixit)) matters. RFerreira 07:02, 2 December 2007 (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.