Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy Summons

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. --Nishkid64 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy Summons/List of final fantasy summons[edit]

I'm pretty sure we've been over this before but I don't have any previous discussion links handy at the moment. Basically, the article is way too detailed and therefore fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, all relevant information to include has been discussed to death and can be found at Final Fantasy magic#Summon Magic already. Axem Titanium 04:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of Final Fantasy deletions. Axem Titanium 04:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, Delete quite inacorrate and should never be created again! Plus many names of the summons creatures are spelled wrong. ShadowKinght (Talk)

Keep. I believe it's a collection of information that arbitrates the franchise as a whole. As it currently stands much of the same information is repeated several times over in different articles, but placing the information together as one article would seem much more accessible. -Emhilradim 06:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. It's a nice read, except when it's wrong. For example, the Japanese elemental philosophy has five elements, not four. ColourBurst 06:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the related List of final fantasy summons into this AFD. My reason for deletion was "Unneeded list, Wikipedia is neither a game guide nor an indiscriminate list of information." MER-C 07:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverified, original research, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCTaLk?!? 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Titw 16:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per Wikipedia not being either a game guide or a indiscriminate collection of information. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 18:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Final Fantasy Summons as original research. For example, the terminology adopted by this article ("aeris genju" and so forth) appears to be completely new, as witness precisely 0 Google hits for any of the classifications used here. Perhaps there's a Final-Fantasy wiki that would welcome an article like this?
Weak delete List of final fantasy summons as a game-guide-esque list that seems to exist primarily as a repository for very minor trivia about very minor characters in various games. — Haeleth Talk 19:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Aeris Genju" translates to Wind-type Phantom Beast. Likewise Geo Genju is Earth-type Phantom Beast. Phantom beasts are the recurring mythic creatures, the most common being Efreet and Shiva. -Emhilradim 04:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But where, either in the series or in third party reliable sources, is the phrase "genju" or "Phantom Beast" ever used to describe all series of Final Fantasy summons? It seems like something fans (or just this set of fans) coined. ColourBurst 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haeleth. Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Haeleth's reasoning. This entire categorization appears to be a creation of the author. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Confusing, crufty, unverified, original research, oh, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Garrett^Talk 01:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already had this debate. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:52, 2 October 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.