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 no consensus to delete (or merge). The default is that the article is kept. A possible solution would be to move up to an intermediate supertopic along the lines of Locations in Halo, and build out other relevant content around it. bd2412 T 03:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Blood Gulch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP:GAMECRUFT. The lede also makes several claims, some of which are puffery, that are not supported in the text. Worth noting this was created against WP:VG consensus; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_137#The_Silent_Cartographer. JOE BRO 64 17:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 17:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• As much as it pains me to say it, Delete. If anybody here is active at the Halo wiki, I'd suggest moving much of the article's contents over there. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me} _{My edits} 19:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nom makes a gamecruft claim while presenting absolutely no evidence of such. Purely an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. As the creator of the article, I checked to see if it passed WP:GNG before creating it, and there are other articles with similar precedent such as Dust II, which has similar significance in Counter Strike as Blood Gulch does in Halo. There is much actual gamecruft in need of cleanup, though. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 06:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • That's pure WP:IDHT. There was crystal clear consensus at WT:VG that you shouldn't create these articles because they consist of (1) a lede that contains puffery claims not supported by the text, (2) a basic gamecruft description of the stage that is of no interest to anyone besides diehard Halo fans, and (3) a weak reception section that simply consists of every trivial mention. There's also absolutely no indication in the article that Blood Gulch had the same impact as Dust II, which actually has meaningful commentary that demonstrates its significance. JOE BRO 64 14:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• "Trivial mention" seems to be a personal opinion on your part. The cited sources are fully discussing the map and they have the map's name in the title of their article. They are not trivial in the slightest. Furthermore, Dust II's reception section is the same size, if you exclude the "Impact and legacy" section that is mostly discussing its ingame changes over the years. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 04:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I am also not really sure what you mean by "meaningful commentary" in the Dust II article as opposed to the commentary in Blood Gulch. Can you give an example of what exactly that would entail? I think there is plenty in the latter that demonstrates that it's one of the series's most famous maps. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 05:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge or Delete - per nom - completely unnecessary spinout made against consensus. It lacks independent notability. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to series article as a recurring element or delete. Doesn't need more than two sentences based on the current sourcing, which is not substantive. Joebro's assessment of the gamecruft is spot on. czar 02:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep or Merge Seems to meet WP:GNG but if this is being removed for WP:GAMECRUFT then Dust II should be. Could be merged to a respective Halo game. Spy-cicle ( talk) 00:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The difference between this article and Dust II is that Dust II actually has sources that demonstrate its nobility; these just boil down to "this is the best Halo level" without any meaningful commentary. JOE BRO 64 00:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC) reply
    • What about everything in Blood Gulch#References? Seems like you are selectively ignoring that. It doesn't matter how relatively famous something is; a mention is notability, period. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 01:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
      • a mention is notability, period—what? That is not how notability works. Notability is actual, detailed coverage of the subject, not every minuscule mention. I have looked at the references, and they all repeat the same bland opinions and don't support the puffery assertions made in the lede. JOE BRO 64 01:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
        • The gamesradar piece is an entire article worth of commentary about the map. The Good Game piece is several paragraphs. Not all of them are massive mentions, but there is enough to say that it's notable. Per WP:BONSAI, an article doesn't need to be massive to be suitable for inclusion, though the article is already a fair bit larger than a stub. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 14:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
          • Ehhh I gotta side with Joebro here. The sourcing here is pretty weak. Those Good Game “paragraphs” are extremely short and say little of substance. Same with some of the others, like the Engadget one. And with only six sources present in total, and so many brief mentions, a separate article is just not warranted. It’s better represented as part of its respective game(s). Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. 172.56.28.46 ( talk) 02:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep WP:NOTPAPER a notable subject with enough sourcing. Wm335td ( talk) 19:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  • How on Earth does NOTPAPER apply here? See Serge's comment above. JOE BRO 64 19:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ TheJoebro64:. Meaning we have no limit to the articles we can keep. We should explore WP:ATD. Editors can disagree as they do in the above thread. You cite Serge because Serge agrees with your nomination ( you and Serge were adamant in the discussion). I have difficulty finding consensus in that discussion. Wm335td ( talk) 20:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Firstly, "hav[ing] no limit to the articles we can keep" has absolutely nothing to do with the fact this article does not meet WP:N. Secondly, I have no idea how you can't see consensus in the discussion. There was clearly a large majority of users who disagreed with Zxcvbnm's VG location articles like this existing because their sourcing is extremely weak; this is by no means an exception. JOE BRO 64 20:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I do not see the consensus you claim theJoebro64. However the real consensus you need is here at AfD. I think this is a Keep per WP:GNG. Wm335td ( talk) 21:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Wm335td: Can you explain why this article is notable based on the information currently present? Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 11:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It isn't WP:GAMECRUFT, as it is not simply of interest to fans of Halo, but also to fans of Red vs. Blue, given that the first 5 seasons mostly occur in Blood Gulch. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 21:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep It passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 23:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge. What's in the article is basically all there ever likely could be for the subject. The two sources for satisfying GNG are the Edge article and Australian Broadcasting Corp feature; the others are minor mentions. As such I think there's a reasonable argument it can barely scrape by GNG, but we're left with an article that really as Czar mentions, merits at most one or two lines in another article. There's no indication of enduring importance, and there's definitely less here than Dust II (which I don't really think successfully argues its case as a separate article either.) I've never come across significant development info that could beef this up, for example, that wouldn't be better served in a larger topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge The reception section is lacking, and i dont even think its usable. Blue Pumpkin Pie ( talk) 09:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• WP:TOOLITTLE. "Being "short" is not grounds for deletion". _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 14:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply

...but it is grounds for merger. czar 05:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Except that it would be WP:UNDUE unless it was reduced to a single sentence, which is an effective delete, not really a merge in the true sense of the term. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 22:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge based on my reasoning in my essay on appropriate coverage. As David Fuchs pointed out, we probably do scrape by GNG here, but if we're trying to write quality articles to be any use to readers, we need quality sourcing, especially of the notability-conferring kind. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep I see no part of WP:GAMECRUFT that forbids prominent game locations. Furthermore, the article meets WP:GNG, and its relevant to not only Halo, but also Red vs. Blue. While the article could certainly be cleaned up, it does have notability. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 20:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There's already plenty of RSes on the page that are specifically about this one level. See also World 1-1, Green Hill Zone etc. WP:GAMECRUFT does not forbid articles about specific video game levels, and the "puffery" that the nominator mentions can simply be removed without deleting the whole article. Phediuk ( talk) 23:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Friendly merge, with keep preferred over effective deletion. By "friendly" I mean "all of the existing content should be kept as passing WP:GNG", rather than merges that are really "stick in a single sentence into the target article." I don't know if the Halo series article is the right target since having a "notable levels" section seems jarring there, but if some other target could be found ("Multiplayer Halo?"), then making it a section of a larger article would be fine. That said, if the franchise article doesn't want this and no other target can be found, keep would be better than deletion, as this material passes GNG; just possible it'd be better as a section rather than a stand-alone article. SnowFire ( talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (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.