Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Final Fantasy V

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 speedy redirect to Final Fantasy V. Was nominated in error. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Final Fantasy V

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was boldly redirected years ago, but I am restoring the page so I can properly nominate it for deletion. It appears to be mostly fancruft, and any external commentary was about the plot, rather than the characters. Overall non-notable listcruft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Why are you recreating an article that has been dormant for 4 years so you can nominate it for deletion? Just restore the redirect and close this AFD. SnowFire (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly sure what your rationale is for a speedy close. It should never have been made a redirect in the first place, if that's what you're saying. With an article this large it should have gone through AfD, per Wikipedia policy._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Articles get merged & redirected, then unmerged, then redirected, all the time. If nobody contests it, just let it happen. Additionally, if ANY material was merged or merged-in-the-future, or if there is ANY hope to recreate the article (which, considering other articles on video game characters, definitely exists), then the revision history should be kept for GFDL compliance. SnowFire (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close! per above. --RAN (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - restore redirect version. I don't know why there's been a flurry of RfDs/AfDs for 4-10 year old redirects, but trying to re-legislate old supposed process violations in order to get the exact same functional result is a waste of everyone's time. --Pres N 19:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be sourced, with several different sources, showing that the topic is notable in itself. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Redirect’’’ - Had no notability years ago, still has none. If it stays recreated, it will just have to be deleted anyway. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2018 (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.