Talk:Dead or Alive 4

Untitled

No. It doesn't have a direct relationship to the halo series. it has an indirect relationship. barely. 458 is non-canon, she can have a page, but not the game that she is in. If this is a Halo wiki, then the only games or materials with pages in it should be Halo related. And don't just delete a delete nomination without discussing why you think that way. What kind of example does that set Manticore? Abuse of power, along with applying personal thoughts to halo-wikia pages, and editing without the consent of the Halopedian community. I ,sir, am appalled. Now if you think otherwise, (which I assume you do) I would be happy to allow you to attempt to persuade my thinking. But dont undermine the rules to do what oyu want. Otherwise a large point of the Halo wiki community would be useless. Spartan 107 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Second the notion to delete this page. A Page on Nicole, with a link to a seperate wiki for the game, would be fine. InnerRayg 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

actually, since Nicole isn't canon, and halopedia has a canon policy, Nicole-458 needs to be deleted too. Spartan 107 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Votes (Closed)

By voting For, you agree to the reason on the articles page and its deletion. If you vote Against, you must supply a liable reason not to delete it.

For:

• Spartan 107 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• InnerRayg 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Against:

• Most of the article concerns Nicole, who has obtained a personal mention from Bungie. While not canon, she's also relatively well-known. Çya, Møuse 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• The Apocalypso universe is a highly notable piece of the Halo universe even if it is not perfectly canon. Review the similar debate regarding deletion at talk:I Love Bees. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Nicole isn't even mentioned until the last paragraph! How is most if this article concerning Nicole!? Besides, she has her page, and I am cool with that. her being in dead or alive 4 doesnt mean that that game deserves a page. Spartan 107 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It explains the game's relevancy to Halo, something that the Wikipedia page would not do. We have similar pages that describe real world elements (e.g. metals), and then go into their relevancy. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• I see to reason to why we must have a DOA4 Eracon. If anything should have an Eracon, it should be The Art of Halo. --File:BR55HB SR Battle Rifle.jpg|65px]] UNIT-X23 ^TALK • _{CONTRIBUTIONS} • _{SERVICE RECORD} • _MESSAGE 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Because some content comes from DOA4, and the era marks it as such. There's nothing to say The Art of Halo can't have one, and I'll work on it later when I get back to a computer with Photoshop if no one else has by then. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 04:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not completely sure if this should be deleted or not. There is some relative Halo information, but this articles is very poorly written for a Halopedia article. The useful information is scattered and the other, unrelevant crap is everywhere else. I would vote for keeping it, only if it is revised and rewritten. TomX117 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Second Deletion Nomination

Well, over the years, my mind has changed and I am now against the article's inclusion. We've updated our standards regarding the "If it's mentioned it gets an article" rule with regard to food, shifting dozens of pointless articles like pizza and melon into one worthwhile list, and Dead or Alive 4 has even more tenuous connection to the Halo series. We have a list of outside references to the Halo series and articles about the Spartan Nicole-458 and set Nassau Station exported from the Halo universe into the Dead or Alive universe. The latter two derive their notability from Bungie coming up with backstories for them and tying them into the i love bees plot, but Dead or Alive 4, while relevant to the subjects of Nicole-485 and Nassau Station, is not of the Halo franchise anymore than the other games mentioned in the outside references list. The page itself should be deleted, and its information should be merged into appropriate articles. Any time the game itself need be mentioned, we can link offsite to Wikipedia. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Support - I agree, the article doesn't meet notability standards. Wikipedia links will do just fine.--Spartacus ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:09, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Support - I agree. This article serves no practical purpose. On the same note, I suggest that Crackdown and Risk also be deleted. For that matter, what about Halo DS? The sources on that article, (a whopping total of two), are both from IGN; everything I've ever read about the project indicates that it was an IGN hoax. --Courage never dies. 14:28, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

With you on Crackdown, Risk might work with a rewrite to focus on the Halo version only, and I'm not sure about Halo DS. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 16:16, 28 August 2012 (EDT)

Oppose - I believe that the article should be redone to only feature content related to Halo and have a link to the wikipedia article for DoA4.) But on the topic of deletions of Crackdown and Halo DS I whole-heartedly agree.--SpaceCowboy 01:34, 6 October 2012 (EDT)

Support - After thought my opinion has changed - SpaceCowboy ^Chatter_Contribs 02:39, 21 October 2012 (EDT)