Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroidvania
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. (aeropagitica) 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metroidvania[edit]
Although I've put a lot of work into this article, I've recently realized it does not pass WP:NEO, because there has never been a definitive work on the subject (the toastyfrog article does not count). When I first joined Wikipedia, it welcomed neologisms, quirky articles, and even original research with the expectation that such seeds would sprout into full, referenced articles. The current Wikipedia is a very different beast, or maybe I was just deluding myself. This article does not belong in the current Wikipedia. Luvcraft 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Castlevania. Even though it is a neologism it is a likely enough search term. But, Luvcraft, feel free to expand the section in Castlevania that talks about Metroidvanias. No need to loose everything. Koweja 23:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that wikipedia as it currently stands would not even allow the information from this article to be merged into Castlevania because, again, there is no definitive work on Metroidvanias. It would just get immediately culled as "original research". Even if it was allowed, it wouldn't really belong in either the Castlevania or the Metroid article. Luvcraft 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should create a disambig page asking if the user meant to go to the Metroid or Castlevania articles, reversing the order of those two for the Castleroid page? Lankybugger 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that wikipedia as it currently stands would not even allow the information from this article to be merged into Castlevania because, again, there is no definitive work on Metroidvanias. It would just get immediately culled as "original research". Even if it was allowed, it wouldn't really belong in either the Castlevania or the Metroid article. Luvcraft 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this article clearly goes against WP:NEO, WP:NOR. dposse 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Much as it pains me, I'm forced to agree. Poking around I figured it'd seen some sort of definition in the media, but I suppose the loose definitions in Jeremy Parish's Retroblogs don't count. For the record I'll probably transfer the article over to Egamia.com, though. Lankybugger 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be great. I'd love to see this article live on somewhere even though it doesn't fit wikipedia. Luvcraft 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's been done. The un-cut version of the Metroidvania article now resides on egamia. Lankybugger 21:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be great. I'd love to see this article live on somewhere even though it doesn't fit wikipedia. Luvcraft 15:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Would do well on a gaming wiki, though. Tzaquiel 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unsourced article being referred to in press and elsewhere on the web, without prejudice against recreation as a properly sourced article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's sad when very notable terms like these are so unverifiable... I wish we could keep it. Voretus/talk 18:21, 19 December 2006 (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.