Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters of Final Fantasy

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 redirect to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series#Monsters. Procedural issues aside, all the arguments here are either that the redirect should be restored or that the article violates guidelines and should thus be deleted. This is effectively a consensus in favour of restoring the redirect, as the guideline-violating content goes away that way. There is only one argument (by Zxcvbnm) that deletion is preferable to redirecting but it hasn't convinced anyone else and there is no overriding policy or guideline requiring so (revert warring can be dealt with by protection, for instance, and hasn't happened yet anyhow according to the arguments here) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters of Final Fantasy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete as entirely fancruft that fails GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT content much more in line with what fan-wikias cover. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speed close and restore redirect On 13 April 2009‎ it was turned into a redirect, all valid information merged over to a proper article. [1] There was no possible reason to restore it just to send it to an AFD. Dream Focus 17:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? It's perfectly allowed to send a former article-cum-redirect to AfD per WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read what you linked to. You only do that if there is a dispute, and there hasn't been in the ten years since this was done. Dream Focus 17:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, thats a valid personal editing philosophy/stance, but really not a valid “speedy close” rationale. If it’s already here, may as well discuss it. At the very least deletion will cut down on these anonymous attempts to stealth-restore it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over 10 years without any stealth restore it, so that's not a valid reason to waste time with this pointless nonsense. Dream Focus 17:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies, I was confusing this one with a similar one. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - That one had a single IP address on July 2014‎ try to revert it after it had been a redirect for years. Still not seeing this as a real problem. Dream Focus 18:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Either way, saying it's "pointless nonsense" is not only accusing other editors of being WP:INCOMPETENT, assuming bad faith, but also patently wrong. If you think it's pointless, why comment? Clearly it is important to you if you feel the need to voice your opinion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This was a redirect, and it was tagged as This redirect was kept in order to preserve this page's edit history after its content was merged into the target page's content. I have not done an examination what content (if any) was merged, and I see no indication that the nominator did so. If content was merged then this is a mandatory keep-or-redirect for copyright reasons. Alsee (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little if any content was merged to the current incarnation of the article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No independent secondary sources to show notability. This stuff belongs on a wikia, not in Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character design of Final Fantasy and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minigames of Final Fantasy, there was no real reason to restore these redirects to articles just to send them to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting them so there is no unnecessary debates or revert warring in the future is a "real reason"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But there weren't any on this article for over ten years until you reverted it for this AFD. Only one of the mentioned articles has ever had any issue with redirect reverting, and even that was over five years ago. This is basically creating a debate to solve an problem that didn't actually exist.Rorshacma (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Truth be told, I would have just sent it to RfD but doing an AfD is required for articles of a certain size. You are free to abstain, but voting "restore redirect" while citing no reason to is not helping anyone._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and restore redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:DEADHORSE and who knows what else. No valid rationale has been provided on why the redirect should be deleted (and no, preventing future recreation is not a valid reason when the edit history shows no attempts of such happening). I'm not one to assume bad faith, but I do consider it to be lying through omission how the nominator failed to acknowledge in his statement tgat the article has been a redirect for ten years, until he himself recreated it and nominated it for deletion(!?). This isn't what AfD is for, and it feels like WP:GAMING to me. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 00:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is the typical practice with this. Please actually read Wikipedia guidelines before throwing out bad faith accusations._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly isn't "typical practice" if several experienced editors are questioning and completely bewildered by what you've done. If there's a Wikipedia guideline for recreating articles literally just to nominate them for AfD ten years after they've been redirected, then please cite it. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the burden is on you to show that I am breaking the rules by doing this. So, where is the rule that explicity prevents people from reversing a redirect and then nominating an article for AfD. It certainly isn't based on article age, because WP:LONGTIME says that an article's age doesn't matter whatsoever in a deletion discussion._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:42, 31 July 2019 (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.