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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in the Half-Life series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Entirely non-notable article about creatures in the Half-Life series of video games, with very few references. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, this belongs on a Half-Life Wiki, merge the big picture parts of this article with Half-Life. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Articles don't have to notable. Half-Life is a notable videogame series and so are the creatures in it. The games have been reviewed by multiple critics, and that includes the creatures. The games themselves are acceptable sources for most of the information in this article. I created this article by merging several of the individual creature articles. And it doesn't belong on Half-Life wiki since that's a for-profit site. --Pixelface (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, articles have to be both notable and verifiable. Regardless of whether information exists elsewhere, it has to be directly cited in this article so the reader can verify it. If this cannot be done, reliability cannot be shown. Also, how does Wikia being for-profit affect the possibility of transwikiing? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this article qualifies as a viable spinout article, so long as we expand it a bit. There is a multitude of source information: for HL1 and HL2, we have Raising the Bar; for the later games, we have the commentaries. I, however, disagree with Pixelface: articles do have to be notable. However, this is a spinout of an article with unquestionable notability and should be treat as such. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cleanup first, with a possible consideration after clean of a merge with Locations of Half-Life if this can't stand on its own - as to create a "Universe of Half-Life" (or something like that first). I'm not sure beyond HL headcrabs what else here is notable, but as Spectre states, HL's pretty well documented to likely find something first. --MASEM (t) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm As an editorial manner, I would prefer a merge of locations and creatures to a 'universe' article, since the content could be better presented that way. From a notability/list standpoint....I don't know. You want a real doozy, try Headcrab. But even searching for that (the most 'notable' of the creatures from that series) gives us plenty of meat. News, Books (which somehow includes Maximum PC...a source that should rightly be in "news"), Scholar (yes, there are a few hits there!). Most of the coverage as it relates to the creature is tangential or trivial, but some is not and in aggregate, it is sufficient to have an article on the subject. I'm ok with effectively hanging the rest of the creatures on the hook of the headcrab to keep things sane. Protonk (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. 129.1.26.23 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Beyond the Vortigaunts, headcrabs and the Combine (two out of three of which have been cleaned up), the Half-Life species aren't notable. I had enough trouble digging out information in relation to the Vortigaunts for Half-Life 1; sources don't cover the others beyond the three mentioned above in any detail that one could properly make a quality article/list out of. I oppose a merger with the locations article, that will make it a real pain to work with properly from an editorial standpoint. Redirect it to the series article if article history is of major concern, but otherwise get rid of it. This stuff is far better covered for fans over at the Half-Life wikia, no transwiki is needed. -- Sabre (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For a start I've found no strong assertion of notability for these critters, in fact the only material I did find related to the human soldiers in the first games (not included here, dealt with in the game articles) and the headcrabs. The antlions are already covered as much as they need be, particularly in Half-Life 2: Episode 2. Players and/or commentators focus on particular enemies or aspects of play, so while 'put them together and make them stronger' works in a lot of subjects it usually doesn't in game sub-articles. What happens is you get enemies like the afformentioned Headcrabs, Vortigaunts and the Combine which get all the attention and the others wilt on the vine. The ones which get the attention get further updates and exposure, the rest get changed around to something else. That's what's happened with Headcrabs, it's what happened with BioShock, it's what happened with Resident Evil. For me these are all dealt with through what exists in the game articles, whether each critter is present or not, and if Sabre hasn't found compelling materials during his own research then that's further confirmation. Someoneanother 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pixelface. Creatures of this highly notable game are widely discussed; the fact that not all of them are independently notable is no reason to delete the entire list. JulesH (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All the notable creatures have their own articles - this list concerns the "rest", as it were.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't mean they can't also appear on a list. All of the people in List of heavy metal guitarists have articles; does that mean we should delete the list? Of course not, it's a useful navigational aid that shows us basic information about multiple related items and, where it is available, directs us to the source of further information, just like this article. JulesH (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep but if not, Merge: Since some of the creatures have standalone notability, the franchise is notable, and the individual games are notable, I'm hesitant to support deletion. Therefore I would support either keeping this article, or merging it back into a franchise/game article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what sourced content there is with either the series article or to a "Universe"-type article and transwiki anything else, if that's possible. As I stated on the article's talk page, most of this is non-notable in-universe trivia and would have a better home elsewhere. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I haven't found many sources on these creatures other than what we already have in other articles. I greatly trust Sabre, too, because he did such a fantastic job improving the Locations of Half-Life article. That said, if there's no consensus to delete, I'd join ZXCVBNM, MASEM, Protonk, Jo7hs2, and Haipa Doragon in calling for a merge. Randomran (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and then discuss whether or not to merge at the appropriate talk page. DGG (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as an alternative. Treating this as a list, I understand where Pixelface is coming at. It needs some cleanup, and if some creatures can demonstrate independent notability, then they could be spun out but mentioned here summary style. If that cannot be possibly be done, then I don't oppose a merge. However, outright deletion is not necessary here. MuZemike 15:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Minor character articles are often a good idea. If this needs to merge, discuss it at the talk page, not AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2009 (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.