Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Not encyclopedic, game guide material not of interest to the general reader. Pagra shtak 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I'd like to address these concerns:

Notability:

If articles such as Places_in_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess are considered notable enough to stay on this site, surely this articles can be expanded to make it as keep-worthy as the other articles. Dungeons are the "meat and potatoes" of this series.

Verifiability

Zelda.com is really the only source we need. The official site has complete walkthroughs for every title in the series, just not with information organized in this fashion.

Etc.

This is not a "game help" or "game guide." My original intent was to have a page with similar purposes as "Places" except for dungeons only. I've been wanting to see a complete dungeon list for a long time, but I could never find one online.

So, with these reasons, I vote Keep. Wikipedian06 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepActually I think this article could be expanded and made much better. DBZROCKS 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, (I reformatted that previous comment according to "Wikistandards"), I'm saying weak because Wikipedia is NOT a game manual. If the article explains a broader range of subkects such as the importance or impact of the dungeons in the game, the artucle should be kept. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In its current condition, the article is very much like a game guide. The individual game articles having sections on the setting of the game is far more important than this. Jay32183 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea of an article on the Dungeons is good, but the current article is not that good. Make it like Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and I will be happy to vote Keep. TJ Spyke 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as breaching the indiscriminate information section of WP:NOT. This list can never be reliably sourced and has no real-world context. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It CAN be reliable sourced, if people wanted to do it. It's a good idea for an article, it just needs to be cleaned up and sourced. TJ Spyke 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To what can it be sourced ? I can't see why a reliable source would be interested in writing about this. All the dungeons require is a mention in the related articles, which already seems there. This is no more an encyclopediac topic than any other strictly in-game piece that has not attracted independant review - Peripitus (Talk) 04:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The settings in each game are already discussed in context in each individual game's article; simply listing them out of context such as this is indiscriminate and of no encyclopedic value. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 02:02Z
Delete, no game guides. Gazpacho 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.. As much as I appreciate the games, this is total cruft, and the article title doesn't allow for much real content. Nihiltres 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indescriminate collection of information which amounts to total fancruft. This goes into very little detail and just serves as a collection of information about the game. Since Wikipedia is not a game guide, this is not the place for this information. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT. The topic really isn't rescuable either. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, because this is associated with an immensely popular game series that has been around for a long period of time and therefore a variety of readers will be interested. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?, just because it is "interesting" does not mean it should have it's own page on Wiki. Wiki is not a game guide, and if people are interested in reading about the places in a certain game, then they can buy the game guide. There are many other websites better suited than Wiki for this. JAMDAWG 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}[reply]
Delete per everyone else who said to delete. Acalamari 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Very incomplete, seems almost arbitrarly completed. Rackabello 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot be referenced. ➪HiDrNick! 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is laughable. Just because you don't want to find sources doesn't mean it can't be referenced. The strategy guides are a good place to start. TJ Spyke 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Game guide content better suited for a Zelda and/or gaming wiki. RobJ1981 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea is sound, but...wellllllllll, it's a game guide. Some of these dungeons are significant enough to warrant mentions, being important to the series as a whole (Heck, Death Mountain probably deserves it's own article), but as this article is written, it's clearly on the NOT list --UsaSatsui 07:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. Highly non-notable.--WaltCip 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funny that a page I happen to come across right when I need it (this) is listed for deletion. I never saw what was so wrong with this kind of thing -- Wikipedia is, as stated, not limited by paper restrictions and this should not limit its contents strictly to notable things. If it's verifiable, and truthful, why delete it? Then again, maybe it's just any article I come across will be deleted lately... I'm backing the original page up to my userspace even though I'm sure some asswipe admin will simply delete it again, like they did with the other copy of a deleted page I was saving (and failed to respond when I asked about it) --72.193.66.186 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because Wikipedia is editable by everyone doesn't mean it becomes what every person individually wants. There's a clear focus for the project. Don't like it? Make your own wiki. --UsaSatsui 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, um really people. Normally I find the accusation of 'game guide' to be totally off base, but in this case, it's EXACTLY what this is. Listing the dungeons within each article are fine, but saying where they are, what item is found there, and what the boss is? Can it BE any more of a guide? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At least it doesn't have any stats. —Cryptic 18:33, 14 April 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.