Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animals in The Legend of Zelda series
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete for now, but if anyone wants the content to do a merge, I will make it available to them. W.marsh 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Animals in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]
- Animals in The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unsourced listcruft/fancruft. Articles like this belong on a Zelda and/or video game wiki. Animals in a series aren't that notable. Just because Zelda is a popular series: doesn't mean listcruft like this should be allowed for it. RobJ1981 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, or merge to main article on the series. Walton monarchist89 17:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Characters in The Legend of Zelda series. --- RockMFR 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 03:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most of these are minor characters or mere props, and they're already given due mention in the articles on the individual games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful information to the characters article, and then redirect to comply with GDFL and preserve edit history. If no information is useful, delete. — Deckiller 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No redirect is necessary in my opinion. Why is an edit history of a cruft page important? Keeping information that wont be used on Wikipedia anymore is pretty useless and doesn't need to be happening. RobJ1981 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. But wait, can't this article be expanded? There's a whole Animal Village in Link's Awakening! And the bees you can catch in jars. And the monkeys. And the chickens! We can't forget about the chickens! --UsaSatsui 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This feels a lot like Horses of Middle-earth, which is specifically given as an example of how to use lists to group minor characters at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I would vote delete, but until the policy is changed, I'm going to have to not vote. --SeizureDog 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misinterpreting the example. The example doesn't mean that all groups of minor characters are notable, but that minor characters should be grouped into one article instead of each given their own article (such as with, oh, Characters in The Legend of Zelda series). The Middle-Earth horses are distinct enough, as a group, to be seperate from the other characters. The information in this list contains one real important animal (Epona), some minor characters who just happen to be animals, and some info on Twilight Princess. It's all duplicated from other articles, and can't be expanded unless someone goes bean-stuffing and adds in the stuff I mentioned above. --UsaSatsui 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Horses of Middle-earth really only has two horses that were notable to any degree: Bill and Shadowfax, and they were pretty minor to begin with. The rest of the horses were only mentioned in passing in the book, and not at all in the films. Hell, Coccos (not in this article, but need to be if it's keep) are more notable than Rochallor, the horse of who?, king of where?--SeizureDog 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, but you're comparing apples and oranges...the merits of Middle-Earth horses are not the issue here. Go take it up with the Tolkien fans. :) The question here is this: Are the various animals in the Zelda series, taken as a whole, notable enough to deserve their own article when this information already exists in other articles? If there were several animals along the lines of Epona, I'd have a different opinion. As it is, though...no dice.--UsaSatsui 01:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Horses of Middle-earth really only has two horses that were notable to any degree: Bill and Shadowfax, and they were pretty minor to begin with. The rest of the horses were only mentioned in passing in the book, and not at all in the films. Hell, Coccos (not in this article, but need to be if it's keep) are more notable than Rochallor, the horse of who?, king of where?--SeizureDog 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're misinterpreting the example. The example doesn't mean that all groups of minor characters are notable, but that minor characters should be grouped into one article instead of each given their own article (such as with, oh, Characters in The Legend of Zelda series). The Middle-Earth horses are distinct enough, as a group, to be seperate from the other characters. The information in this list contains one real important animal (Epona), some minor characters who just happen to be animals, and some info on Twilight Princess. It's all duplicated from other articles, and can't be expanded unless someone goes bean-stuffing and adds in the stuff I mentioned above. --UsaSatsui 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 19:29, 4 February 2007 (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.