Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Judgesurreal777 (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 27 November 2007 (Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:46, 27 November 2007 by Judgesurreal777 (talk | contribs) (Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service

Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

References, not "being in a movie" justify notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to get a lot of hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be mostly wikipedia mirrors, so not that impressive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The shear number is really impressive (admittedly, I didn't even expect that many hits). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL what's impressive? There is not one reference in the hits! :) Please be serious if you want to keep debating this articles notability, or any other for that matter. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the topic has attracted that much interest is impressive. Besides, why focus on deleting stuff people worked on rather than improving articles? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why have an encyclopedia filled with trivia and junk? And besides, I know a lot of the people who help delete articles, and they are some of the most active people in building up articles, especially fiction ones. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Categories: