Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga (3rd nomination)

Add links
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 as unverified (however, I will userfy to badlydrawnjeff per his offer) . Docg 19:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga (3rd nomination)[edit]

Nominated by Jonny2x4 (talk · contribs) stating "Obvious vanity article. I know the article failed nomination once, but this REALLY is a vanity page." Only helping the nomination along. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the first two nominations. Got web coverage, and the nomination rationale is entirely without merit as I'm the primary author from over a year ago and had nothing to do with the actual situation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Web coverage shouldn't be a factor whether a hoax gets an article or not. People make hoaxes all the time on the internet and I don't see how different this one, other than Zelda is a really popular franchise. Jonny2x4 00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one reference is a blog. Internet hoaxes picked up by other websites aren't notable. It would need to have gotten picked up by a print source. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and the fact that one reference is a blog. †he Bread 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with The Bread. To quote the emphatic point made at Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, WP:RS. The one and only cited source is a blog, and that just doesn't cut it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of computer and video game hoaxes. Wow, that article finally will have a purpose! --- RockMFR 01:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the merge; it does not address the problem of their being no reliable sources. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but this reasoning doesn't really hold water, lots of articles go up and back and up and back at AfD, sometimes due to clouded votes, lack of consensus, sockpuppetry, and a host of other reasons, I would advocate reexamining every AfD on its own merits, unless it is a bad-faith nomination.--Dmz5 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it survived 2 previous nominations, it means those arguing against it in those nominations weren't forceful enough in demanding reliable sources. Geoffrey Spear 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough sources to establish notability. Recury 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR, OR synthesis, POV, reads like an ssay, WP:V, WP:RS. Moreschi Deletion! 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepvery notable--Slogankid 21:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- non-notable. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 21:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. And remove the image while you're still at it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. per nom?? Nom argues for deletion when nominating, then votes to keep arguing against. Anomo 12:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he was just helping another nominator complete the nomination process. Read again, please. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user put the AfD tag on the article, didn't fix it, and tried to argue deletion on the article's talk page. I merely fixed the nomination for him. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Userfy. Merge to that one Zelda one the nom said in the talk page or another. If not, maybe userfy to a subpage of Jeff's userspace since he said he wrote most of it in the talk page. The main problem is lack of notable sources. Anomo 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd gladly accept a userfication if this ends up being deleted, I haven't really bothered with it in a while anyway, so it may push me to clean it up better for better acceptance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Maybe merge into Zelda II: The Adventure of Link if anything. Koweja 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This could possibly be merged into the LoZ II article, or possibly a list of hoaxes if there is one. - Bisected8 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't believe this is still here! Delete as an apparant Joystiq fanboy vanity page. The Kinslayer 10:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per badlydrawnjeff's offer to clean up the article. --DavidHOzAu 12:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to badlydrawnjeff. I think the topic is encyclopedic and it could be an article worth keeping, but not yet. — brighterorange (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy if deleted and userfy the talk page as well so you know what the contradiction tag is for. --WikiSlasher 02:17, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Legend_of_Zelda:_The_Triforce_Saga_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1144702079"