Talk:Dead or Alive 4

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
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, M  ø  u  s  e  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. --Dragonc laws (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. --Dragonc laws (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. --[[Image:BR55HB SR Battle Rifle.jpg|65px]] UNIT-X23  http://www.wikia.com/skins/common/progress-wheel.gif 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. --Dragonc laws (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)