Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time
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 no consensus. Courcelles 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fan film. Only critical reception is from FanFilms.net —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
its a very well known film with many fans and admirers, with all the hard work spent to creat it, it desearves to have recognition --- Dar, The Beastmaster (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we need is non trivial coverage from reliable indepedant secondary sources before we can have an article without that there should not be an article even if it "deserve coverage". If the film is that well know there it should be easy to find coverage.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - coverage at GamesRadar, Joystiq. Probably squeaks by WP:SIGCOV. --Teancum (talk) 12:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I'm on the same page as Teancum. There are a few references and some reception for the article, it's just poorly written and not referenced at all. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2011 (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.