Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ion Storm (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. - Mailer Diablo 10:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Storm (Command & Conquer)

Fictional weather in one single game. Far too much detail, unsourced and unsourcable, better suited to a game guide.

This was prodded, but deprodded without comment by an anon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to something AdamBiswanger1 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't deserve its own article. --SevereTireDamage 04:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --BrownHairedGirl 07:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 08:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AMIB. Game guide material, at best. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just make it descriptive if you think it is a strategy guide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.68.0 (talk • contribs)
Merge into Command and Conquer. -TrackerTV 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete Any info about this should belong in the "Command and Conquer" article --Ted87 01:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not merge. The information is in the nature of a game guide and would detract from an encyclopedic article. --Stellmach 13:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Peephole 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
Strong Keep To refute, it is not fictional weather, the ion storm is a documented astronomical anomaly and just because I know no one believes me, I brought proof from the NOAA website <http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:5gIHqXJCIxIJ:sxi.ngdc.noaa.gov/sxi_greatest.html+%22ion+storm%22+%22anomaly%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1> Click there, scroll down a bit, and you'll find documented proof of observed Ion Storms. Second, when is too much detail ever bad? Seems like a rather conceptual rather than analytical attack to make, espacially considering there is no real argument to be made. Third, sourcing is not always the root of an intellectual community. I can tell you a hundred thousand times that the moon is made of green cheeze, or that we never went to the moon, or that the Earth is flat, and I can even find sources to back the claim, but one way or another it adds neither fact nor fiction to the general postulation. So why the big stink about sources? Moreover, addressing the final point, how is this better suited to a game guide? It provides no actual information on how to play the game, just that the occurence appears in the game. Since there exists an ion storm which causes similar effects to happen to high level technology in the real world I find it easy to draw the parallel between the ion storm's game application as a figuritive adaptation of modern day astrological occurrences, a fitting conclusion I dare say given that the plot of the game is to describe a society in which the earth is slowly being rotted from both outside and in. Behold the destructive powers of mother nature.ChiRoGuardian06 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Comment To refute your refutation...neither the existence nor notability of the Solar_wind (the redirect for the astronomical phenomenon) is being disputed in this AFD. Nor is the existence of the ion storm in the game - rather, I think it's really just the notability of the C&C ion storm. There's not really a huge problem with including too much detail, except when that detail turns into a new article. Since every article on Wikipedia is expected to eventually (through good editing) be good enough to become a featured article on the main page, there comes a point where a full article on a minor topic is not warranted, and should instead be shrunk down enough to be merged into another article. I'd rather not address the "big stink about sources" and will simply direct you to WP:V. That's one of Wikipedia's three big policies - don't take it lightly. As far as the "game guide argument"...I actually agree with you. Probably the reason that argument was tacked on was because of User:Proto/gc...any attempt to label something a "game guide" has been a golden argument lately. And while I hate that argument because it seems to be a blatant attempt at making a WP:POINT, I still vote delete, for the previous arguments laid out. JoshWook 15:10, 7 August 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.