Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring weapons and items from 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. east.718 at 00:15, December 26, 2007

Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series

Fails WP:VERIFY and WP:FICT. A list of weapons is not notable, and is WP:GAMECRUFT. Fangz of Blood 16:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki to the Zelda Wikia page. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That is definite game guide material, and it has no place here. The single weapons can be described within the gameplay sections of the games if they warrant even that much. TTN (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's meant to be a discussion of how certain recurring items have evolved throughout the series, which is often mentioned and remarked on in reviews and previews - for example, how ALttP's hookshot morphed into TP's clawshot. It obviously needs more sourcing, and a merge would probably be for the best, but it is easy to verify that the information is indeed notable.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki/Delete with some very distilled summary being included in the main Zelda series page to describe that many common tools/items appear across the series. --MASEM 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with transwiki option per above (the Zelda wikia won't load for me at the moment, so I can't check whether they even need this; probably not). Except for the Master Sword (which has its own article and deserves a mention somewhere, even if only in a merged form), none of these weapons/items here are in anyway notable, and the whole article reads like WP:NOT#GUIDE. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, no referencing per WP:RS Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the apparent consensus above. --Jack Merridew 11:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a well put together article concerning one of the all time kost notable game series. It just needs more sources, which should not be hard to find as any strategy guide or magazine article could work as a secondary source. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki in theory, the article is a good idea. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. .:Alex:. 15:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has virtually no primary sources and not a single secondary source as evidence of notability. This article basically fails WP:NOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nothing encyclopedic. I have already ported it to another wiki as well. --businessman332211 (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - we're trying to merge the items that are important to the storyline to a new "Universe of The Legend of Zelda series" article, with possibly some mention of "mainstay" items. If needed, move this to a sandbox article (I'll take it at User:KrytenKoro/Universe of The Legend of Zelda series/Items).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and necessary to providing comprehensive coverage of this series of games. All the content can be verified, as Le Grand Roi explained. "Cruft" is not an argument. Everyking (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - verification by outside sources is irrelevant if all you are sourcing is game guide information, which does not point to any real world notability that would satisfy WP:FICT. If there are no secondary sources offering any critical commentary on the article's subject, then it should be merged or deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't base my reasoning on guidelines written by deletionists. Everyking (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have no basis for your argument, as I doubt you can assert why we should ignore them here. That and you're showing a lack of good faith towards everyone here and those who wrote those guidelines, nor is it called for in this situation. Again, that it can be verified is irrelevant. I can verify the existence of my house using a reliable source and that does not make it notable enough to have its own article. Provide secondary sources to assert notability or any further discussion on this matter is pointless. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no basis for my argument just because the argument isn't made on the basis of some guideline? My argument is based on core policy. And I am not proposing the creation of an article on your house; there's no need to assault that poor strawman. Everyking (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FICT, WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - how is it a guide? I can see where it gets crufty in places, but at its core, it is discussing how the items have changed throughout the series. That is the point of the article, and its easy enough to verify notability in hundreds of gaming magazines. I realize that won't stop this article from being removed, though - Admin, please at least copy it to the article in my userspace, link given above, so we can work on getting it merged into a larger universe article.

Seriously, though - everyone here, just look up "Legend of Zelda Hookshot Clawshot review. The first site I found was exactly the type of review I was talking about. The sources pertinent to the scope of this article exist, so all that would be required to satisfy the guidelines would be to source them. To this, I ask your help, since I am quite bad at summarizing and citing secondary sources.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:22, 25 December 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.