Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GDI technology of Command & Conquer

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. PeaceNT (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDI technology of Command & Conquer

Delete for same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet technology of Command & Conquer. Pagra shtak 22:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagra shtak 22:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per reasoning with other nominations. Marasmusine 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning in the other nominations. Jtrainor 08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - these articles have been tagged for awhile, so it seems to me that improvement may not be forthcoming. Nevertheless, given the preponderance of reliance on this (and the relevant Nod article) by the parent articles, and other franchise articles in general, thought should be given to hanging onto them for a while longer, or at least merging the contents in with the main GDI or Nod articles. MalikCarr 08:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing worth merging. Pagra shtak 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my reasoning in the other nominations.--Eldarone 19:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eldarone's reasoning. Peptuck 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my reasoning at the other one (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied technology of Command & Conquer). Miremare 19:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for stated reasons. Heh, Wikipedia gets more useless and useless for lore everyday. Mikael GRizzly 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It is a long featured article and it has been used for a long time. Also Mikael in the CNC Wiki please make more strategies and Tactics for both RA2 and Generals not just the Tiberium Series.(TougHHead 08:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Balloonman (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this nom as a keep---eventhough I disagreed with the consensus to keep. Then I noticed three similar AFD's on similar topics:

Those three AFD's were clear deletes, for valid reasons. I'm relisting this as the logic to delete the other three should be valid here as well. It makes no sense, to me, to keep 1 and delete the other 3. So, I'd go with Delete-- Balloonman (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - As Mikael said, "Wikipedia gets more useless for lore everyday". Amen. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still saying delete as no real-world context / no proper sourcing / no notability. Miremare 23:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either there is "extensive coverage" of the topic of "GDI technology of Command & Conquer" by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic, or WP:N, WP:RS are not met. If they are not met then either this is non-notable came cruft that has to be deleted, or there is some exception to all of wikipedia's policy that applies to articles that this that I wasn't previously aware of. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and WP:FICT. This page is excessively detailed and puts undue weight on the plot aspect of a strategy game. User:Krator (t c) 11:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move to StrategyWiki: This is unnecessarily detailed, in-universe information that doesn't really help the casual reader understand the essence of the game. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. No primary or secondary sources indicates this woudl make a lousy merge candidate. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:12, 20 November 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.