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. Jreferee t/c 05:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universe of the Metroid series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was merged together with the best of intentions in order to make one, notable quality article out of many stubs. However, it appears that there is little to no referencing available for the universe of Metroid, and therefore I propose it be deleted. --Judgesurreal777 04:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep. So, you're not actually proposing a deletion? In that case, the article's talk page is the place to bring your concerns. --UsaSatsui 07:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't "articles for merging", if you merge material you have to keep the original history intact for GFDL reasons. Moving material around between articles can be done through routine editing without needing to get AfD involved. Bryan Derksen 08:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DUH, THIS IS ARTICLES FOR DELETION. I am saying that anything useful should be transferred, thought in my opinion there is basically nothing to save, but in case someone cares to trans wiki it before its deleted, do it now. Judgesurreal777 08:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people might get confused AfD can stand for "Articles of Discussion" like the category page does. Rocket000 10:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Nominator wants it merging - page must be kept for GFDL reasons in that case. Will ^(talk) 12:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the opening, clear enough now? I want it "DELETED" :) Judgesurreal777 16:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Metroid (series) then. Will ^(talk) 19:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you think it's a Keep, then go get me three good references from secondary sources. Not fanboy sites, Not userboard discussions. Because without references, it's a definite Delete. MarkBul 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a reason for the deletion, it's a definite keep. He didn't have one when he first nominated the article. --UsaSatsui 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Merge Delete per Will The article does need work on references, but as a single-unified resource for Metroid on wikipedia this is an amazing body of work. I'd like to see some of tags left up so editors can continue to address the sourcing issues, but I feel deletion based on the current grounds is not justified. For sources I'd suggest checking the information against several types of sources such as the game manuals, Tokyopop Manga series, strategy guides, any game reviews which include backstory info to start with.--Torchwood Who? 20:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to, you are free to transwiki it to Wikitroid fan encyclopedia before it is deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Judge? You're right. Most of this stuff is already on wikitroid. I think we get caught up in desire to have EVERYTHING on wikipedia just because most people are most aware of the "wikipedia" name. If we didn't have these articles on wikipedia wikitroid would probably pop up higher in google anyway (for appropriate searches). I am, however, going to be sure there's a further reading link on the metroid article that directs interested reader to wikitroid. I think that's a fair compromise.--Torchwood Who? 07:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear crhist in heaven delete overly long, needs vast amount of references and frankly pointless. Viridae^Talk 04:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's an excessively long plot regurgitation with no references (third party, please) or real world content. It'd be better to burn this and start over. ' 05:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Apostrophe and WP:IINFO. Severely excessive for Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. Could be considered fancruft. Stifle (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. BTW, this is ranked #4 on the Top 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia entries [1] hbdragon88 06:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not comfortable with deleting material because it makes mocking us easier for those who want to mock us. --Kizor 10:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ~[reply]

• It's a painfully accurate criticism, and the writer does point out that Metroid (series) is a better article overall. ' 13:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burn it with fire: This is pointless cruft. Even the most die-hard Metroid fan would agree that this belongs in a Metroid Wikia instead.--_ZXCVBNM 20:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it is better to have one big article with all this stuff than having hundreds of little articles lacking notability as it was before. Maybe we can all work in this article to make it shorter and to look for references and reliable sources. Lord Opeth 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda what we were thinking, but then after we merged it, it seems that there isn't enough real world stuff to sustain it on its own. I personally haven't found much on the concept and creation of this stuff, just a lot of fan sites. Judgesurreal777 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A disgrace to WP:FICTION -- that is, an article dedicated on meticulous detail of in-universe detail. Our articles on the games is good enough, as well as Metroid (series) and Samus Aran. Basically, we should do our best to merge this stuff into Metroid (series) (this does not mean a massive merge of the two pages). MessedRocker (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thousands have played this game and are familiar with the characters; if a wiki article on the game Starflight or Leisure Suit Larry is notable enough for wikipedia, so should this be. Both of the aforementioned games have little to no referencing available, but have no flags for deletion. Video game minutia is hard to reference, but that doesn't make it non-notable.--pvonmalt

I disagree. Those articles you mentioned are on the games themselves, not (for the most part) the in-universe fictional story in those games. We have the same sort of articles with each of the individual games in the Metroid series. It's this giant article that is solely about in-universe info that's under debate, due to the fact that in-universe information has to have citations from proper sources, which this article does not. Arrowned 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. We shouldn't be afraid of getting rid of crud on the basis that it makes it easier for others to mock us. Wikipedia has its standards and it is those standards and those standards alone which should decide whether something is suitable for Wikipedia; not how it makes us look to those who don't like us anyway. This article comes nowhere near Wikipedia standards for either notability or article content. B1atv 05:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but not in its current form. Yes, Wikipedia has standards, but this article, if properly sourced and about twenty times shorter, would be interesting and informative for anyone interested in the Metroid series. Some of the info (for example, the descriptions of the planets) is pretty important - at least as far as information on elements in a fictional series can ever be "important". Other aspects are pointless and excessive (the trivia section needs to go, for starters, and I don't believe any but the most obsessive Metroid fan cares about including every single fact about the Space Pirates). I therefore propose that the article be completely rewritten, preferably in a much shorter form. RobbieG 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But again, the question is "do we have the references on how all this stuff was conceived? As of now, we don't have even a single one, and to sustain an article like this, it would take potentially dozens. Judgesurreal777 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources could probably be found to sustain a shorter, better written article. The series is not as obscure as you seem to be suggesting; plenty of journalists and games websites could confirm that the series contains a planet called Zebes, for example. RobbieG 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply pointing out that as of now, there is no evidence that there is plenty of anything discussing the concept and creation of these metroid plot elements. Judgesurreal777 16:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but everything unreferenced should be removed--so, this will be a stub and since finding reliable sources for all of this will be hard it won't be able to grow so huge again. gren グレン 05:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as entirely in-universe. To comply with WP:FICT this article is so out of whack it seems that a complete restart may be in order. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Judgesurreal777. Better to do this now, because if it is kept, I can just see this being nominated for deletion over and over again as it is such a blatant contravention of notability guideline WP:FICTION. --Gavin Collins 10:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:FICTION because it's very unlikely that secondary sources will ever cover any of these topics. Acct4 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and per WP:FICTION. Extensive plot summary. -- Wikipedical 23:33, 3 October 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.