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 merge to List of Gears of War characters and adversaries. --jonny-m t 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Fenix

[edit]

I know he's the main character of Gears of War, but it appears that this guy doesn't have a chance here. He doesn't assert enough notability to maintain his own article. He doesn't need his own page, and should be merged in with the character list at this rate. -- ZeroGiga (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Gears of War characters and adversaries per nomination. Alternately, redirect to the article on the game as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 10:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hang on a minute, have you had a look for references? There's no indication in the nomination or on the talkpage that this has been done. As the main character in a blockbuster game (which is character and plot-focused) Fenix is more likely a candidate for an individual article than most. I'll take a look when I get minute, but considering that the character is returning for a second game and voiced by Bender from Futurama's voice actor [1] there's a chance. Someone another 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensed statue, top ten gaming hard-nuts, #9 worst character - "a mish-mash of Deckard from Blade Runner and Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh", comic book coming in October, details of each character on IGN, used as an example of what sixth-generation console characters need (a background). None of which is conclusive but points to there being material out there. Some detailed development info from interviews or books would pretty much seal it though. Someone another 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Protagonist of one of the most notable games of the present era. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop with the excuses man. Just because he's the protagonist, that doesn't let him off light. He needs SOURCES and PROPER REAL WORLD INFORMATION. While the game he's from is notable, HE'S NOT. In fact, he fits just easily into the list. ZeroGiga (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to GOW Character Page; outside of a plot summary, there's not much other information to state about Fenix that would not belong on the GOW's Character Page. The GOW Character page itself is also under construction. -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above; also, the article is mainly gamecruft, and much of the content merely reiterates the plot of Gears of War. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Needs a lot of notability to sustain a whole article, and it has yet to show it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Gears of War characters and adversaries as we did with many other characters of the same game many months ago. There is no way to gain notability. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after summarizing. This is excessive detail for an encyclopedia, and verges on game guide material in violation of wikipedia policy. See also WP:GAMETRIVIA. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and protected redirect per the above. largely gamecruft and no assertion of real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main character of a notable series is verifiable and significant enough for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although that is merely an essay, your reading is idiosyncratic:
Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft.
Comment: As others have said, "cruft" is just not a helpful word in these discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Starblind, as well is the product of notable person John Dimaggio. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect~~. Strong delete, possible copyvio [do a Google search on "During the course of the game, Fenix" (with the quotation marks).] 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:36, 15 May 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.