Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galatic adventures
- 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Galatic adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I propose a deletion with a redirect to the primary Spore article unless and until the expansion becomes independently notable. Tyrenon (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt's already independently notable: GameSpot preview, Computer and Video Games preview, IGN preview, Eurogamer preview, 1up preview, Kotaku reports on the Robot Chicken angle. Where's the problem? Someoneanother 10:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spore Galactic Adventures already exists, this needs renaming and history-merging there, or something. Someoneanother 10:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main Spore article there already includes what this one does, but in better context. I think turning this into a (spellchecked) redirect rather than an independent page is the best solution at this stage (though as I said, if the expansion becomes a big enough deal on its own, its own article would make sense then).Tyrenon (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already a big enough deal, the number and size of sources above would validate an article on any standalone video-game, a couple of sentences will not adequately cover a departure in game mechanics, development and merchandising or reception details. Genuine expansion packs generate enough information and secondary sources to support articles, as has been the case for years. Someoneanother 14:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main Spore article there already includes what this one does, but in better context. I think turning this into a (spellchecked) redirect rather than an independent page is the best solution at this stage (though as I said, if the expansion becomes a big enough deal on its own, its own article would make sense then).Tyrenon (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete wrong spelling, better article already exists. Hobit (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Someoneanother 13:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I'm an idiot who didn't understand things as well as I thought I did. At this point I'd suggest a merge to the main article, but it does appear that the expansion meets notability requirements, so keep with a recommendation (for now) of an editorial merge. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The name of the article contains a spelling error. I took the initiative and redirected the page to Spore Galactic Adventures, duplicating all the key information in there. — Rankiri (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification. Just to be clear, the subject itself ("Spore Galactic Adventures") easily passes both WP:N and WP:V[1][2]. It's "Galatic adventures" that I believe needs to be deleted. — Rankiri (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rankiri. Someoneanother 20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect as redundant but a plausible spelling error. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (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.