Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupee (The Legend of Zelda series)
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 Merge to The Legend of Zelda series#Fictional universe. Cbrown1023 talk 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rupee (The Legend of Zelda series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The numerical values of Rupees in different Zelda games has nothing to do with what Zelda games are, or why they're notable. As such, this sort of information belongs in a gaming FAQ or gaming wiki, not Wikipedia. Chardish 18:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the more relevant data into the Fictional universe section of the main article under "currency" or some such. ◄Zahakiel► 19:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Legend of Zelda (series). This information is appropriate for a game guide, not Wikipedia. ShadowHalo 02:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to agree with Merge, but not on the basis of notability or WP:NOT--I imagine the unit of currency of one of the world's most popular video game series is inherently notable and inherently encyclopedic. But what else could possibly be added to the article as it stands? We know nothing about the material from which Rupees are made, nor how the Rupee came to be so widespread in the Zelda universe, nor any other aspect of Rupeean history, nor what bank guarantees the value of the Rupee, and so on. We can't provide any information about the currency itself, and so we shouldn't have an independent article about it. --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with you, but for future reference, nothing is "inherently notable," and the only topics that are encyclopedic are notable ones. We have a set of objective criteria for notability: read about them at WP:N. - Chardish 09:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but if WP:N were strictly applied in all cases, then we couldn't have articles on Zebes or Great Fox or every episode of Robot Chicken, simply because no one cares enough to write a book about them. That would be bad. :P --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Zebes and Great Fox articles are stuffed full of original research and lack any sources whatsoever. The same is true for the few episodes of Robot Chicken I looked at. Being tangentially related to a notable topic (Zelda, or Metroid, or Star Fox, or Robot Chicken) does not make the related articles (Rupee, Zebes, Great Fox, the RC episodes) notable. These are superb illustrations of what Wikipedia should not be: a place for people to type up information they "already know." The presence of reliable sources is non-negotiable. - Chardish 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but if WP:N were strictly applied in all cases, then we couldn't have articles on Zebes or Great Fox or every episode of Robot Chicken, simply because no one cares enough to write a book about them. That would be bad. :P --Rae (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with you, but for future reference, nothing is "inherently notable," and the only topics that are encyclopedic are notable ones. We have a set of objective criteria for notability: read about them at WP:N. - Chardish 09:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The right editor will be able to access plenty of players guides and magazines which could source every part of this article per WP:V. The nom provides no real rationale for deletion here, as it certainly does not violate WP:NOT and is a perfectly legitimate target with no clear merge target. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in the article is obviously verifiable: that's not the issue being contested here, so debating that is a red herring. Would you please explain how this article does not violate WP:NOT#IINFO? The policy makes it clear that video game guides are not acceptable for Wikipedia. - Chardish 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can go with strategy guides not being acceptable for Wikipedia, but what about game manuals? I'm not trying to be ornery, but I read the WP:Not article that you are referring to, and I don't remember game manuals being brought up either as acceptable or unacceptable. This might be a good time to put that in writing, if it hasn't already been. : Bucky
- The information in the article is obviously verifiable: that's not the issue being contested here, so debating that is a red herring. Would you please explain how this article does not violate WP:NOT#IINFO? The policy makes it clear that video game guides are not acceptable for Wikipedia. - Chardish 04:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are enough primary and secondary sources to properly reference this (magazines, the games themselves, etc). Merge would be a good idea if the target article wasn't already gigantic. --- RockMFR 21:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be sources for this information, but that does not mean that it doesn't fall under the description of what Wikipedia is not. Please read that article and Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and reformulate your argument to address the primary problem with the article. - Chardish 22:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Parts of the article are inappropriate for wikipedia, but the solution for that is to remove those parts, not delete the entire article. This article should probably be 1/3 its current size, and only include appropriately sourced information. As noted above though, this virtual currency exists in dozens of games and that's easily verifiable from good sources. This should have been tagged for cleanup not deletion.--JayHenry 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "virtual currency" and it's not important to the Zelda universe. It's simply a "colorful" way of representing an in-game measure of the character's money. It's of equal importance to Zelda as coins are to Super Mario games. Wikipedia is not a place to house gaming trivia, which everything except the first sentence is. - Chardish 00:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that if Mario collected "Mario Ingots" then that would also be deserving of an article. I would suggest looking at an AFD for something like Goombas, AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goomba. Similar to the Goomba, the Rupee is an iconic part of the Zelda universe. Anyways, I've said my peace. My argument that it should be kept is well-taken as is Chardish's argument that it should be deleted. No need for never-ending rebuttals of those we disagree with.--JayHenry 04:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't place the Rupee on the same level as the Goomba. That level of notability is reserved for the Tektite or Octorok. Also Mario Ingots, if they exsisted, would probably wind up in the Mario Series article, just like the Rupee. :Bucky
- I would argue that if Mario collected "Mario Ingots" then that would also be deserving of an article. I would suggest looking at an AFD for something like Goombas, AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goomba. Similar to the Goomba, the Rupee is an iconic part of the Zelda universe. Anyways, I've said my peace. My argument that it should be kept is well-taken as is Chardish's argument that it should be deleted. No need for never-ending rebuttals of those we disagree with.--JayHenry 04:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not "virtual currency" and it's not important to the Zelda universe. It's simply a "colorful" way of representing an in-game measure of the character's money. It's of equal importance to Zelda as coins are to Super Mario games. Wikipedia is not a place to house gaming trivia, which everything except the first sentence is. - Chardish 00:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I was going to say merge, but it's all pretty much irrelevant information. Rupees should already be covered by the main Zelda article anyway. Moogy (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge; The people up top are right. This deserves a section (or even a subsection) in the Zelda Series article, not it's own article. I've started the merge process already; I hope it's okay.User:Buckwheatjones
- Merge (not just redirect and forget): This currency has had enough of an impact on popular culture and is quite important in regards to the Zelda series, so the information should be retained, but it shouldn't get its own article. Voretus 21:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions: What impact on popular culture? (Remember, we're talking about popular culture, not internet gaming forums.) How are rupees important to the Zelda series? (Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if they were called "gems" or "crystals" instead of rupees.) And most importantly, what do the different values of rupees and the size of Link's wallet have to do with either of those? - Chardish 06:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Other video games, for one pop culture example. They're very important to the Zelda games. Have you played any of them? You wouldn't be able to beat the games without them, and they're even used in puzzles sometimes! They're NOT called gems or crystals. We're not talking about the name ("Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if they were called "gems" or "crystals" instead of rupees."). We're talking about the monetary units themselves. A better hypothetical situation would be "Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if there was no money system." The answer to that would be "a lot." :) I'm asking for a merge. There's not enough real-life consequence to the rupee to have an article, but there is tons of consequence in regards to the Zelda series, so the information should definitely not be deleted. Voretus 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other video games" could be a trivia thing in the main Zelda article. The fact that Zelda games contain a monetary system is of minor interest to the Zelda games - a few sentences in the main article would do this topic justice. "Zelda games frequently feature in-game currency known as rupees, which appear as crystals of different colors and are found over the course of the adventure. They can be used to buy items and powerups, and are occasionally used to pass certain required game objectives." And find a good source. That's it. Everything else is trivial.
- Other video games, for one pop culture example. They're very important to the Zelda games. Have you played any of them? You wouldn't be able to beat the games without them, and they're even used in puzzles sometimes! They're NOT called gems or crystals. We're not talking about the name ("Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if they were called "gems" or "crystals" instead of rupees."). We're talking about the monetary units themselves. A better hypothetical situation would be "Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if there was no money system." The answer to that would be "a lot." :) I'm asking for a merge. There's not enough real-life consequence to the rupee to have an article, but there is tons of consequence in regards to the Zelda series, so the information should definitely not be deleted. Voretus 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions: What impact on popular culture? (Remember, we're talking about popular culture, not internet gaming forums.) How are rupees important to the Zelda series? (Ask yourself how much the games would be different in plot, theme, gameplay, and appeal if they were called "gems" or "crystals" instead of rupees.) And most importantly, what do the different values of rupees and the size of Link's wallet have to do with either of those? - Chardish 06:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, for your information, I've beaten four Zelda games: the original, LttP, OoT, and TTP. - Chardish 22:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to again mention that work on merging this into the main Zelda Series article has begun. If you can find a source for what you just mentioned, I'd be glad to add it. By the way, TTP refers to Twilight Princess, Right? :Bucky 01:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep interesting and valuable. IrnBru001
- 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.