Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millennium Items

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. It's not every day that you see a discussion where the first six comments result in six different suggestions. Delete, merge, split, rename, keep and redirect - wow! In any case there is clearly no consensus as far as what to do with this article, although the broad diversity in opinions and suggestions here is clearly indicative that the status quo is not an acceptable solution. As there is, however, no consensus to delete, any discussion on precisely what to do with it should continue among interested editors. Shereth 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Items[edit]

This article had in-universe information and not a sign of notability. It is filled with Fancruft and/or original research. Unless notability could be found, this article has no reason being here on this site, or should be merged with the main series article. Anyone agree? ZeroGiga (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the information on these items has little if any real world relevance. The individual items should redirect to relevant characters (ie. Millennium Puzzle to Yugi Mutou, Millennium Ring to Ryo Bakura), but this article in itself is better suited for the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia. JuJube (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to other articles A lot would be cut down, but I would like to see some coverage of these items. -- Ned Scott 05:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please suggest where you would merge this to? Stifle (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split into corresponding character articles or sections. StardustDragon 05:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename' to Yugioh millennium items, and merge all the item articles here. Since the current name is unclear and misleading, suggesting "actual" millennarianism, and having all these separate articles is fancrufty. OR merge everything to a List of Yugioh items. 70.51.8.56 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major plot arc and items in the Yu-Gi-Oh! universe. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eight fold redirect per JuJube Sceptre ^(talk) 10:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unencyclopedic. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:UNENCYC for a reason that this is an argument to avoid. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It looks like many or even most of the Yu-Gi-Oh articles aren't sourced or anything; rather than just using this to set a precedent to delete all of them, though, we should notify the appropriate Wikiproject to come and bring the whole set of pages up to par. Some of the information really should be preserved, and I'd rather that the merging and deletion be done by experts rather than us. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to where, exactly? Stifle (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely important part of hugely notable anime series. Inadequate sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion, and redirection to individual character articles is not appropriate since the items changed ownership several times throughout the series. The items are important on their own, and merging information anywhere else would make other articles quite long. It's best to keep this localized here. GlassCobra 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in the course of the "present time" timeline of the series, the items are only used by one character each (Shadi used two). Although Bakura got the Eye and eventually Yugi got all of them, their abilities were not utilized by them. So I believe redirects would be appropriate. JuJube (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would still argue that the items have importance by themselves and are relevant by themselves relative to the series as a whole. I wouldn't say that each of the items needs their own article, but I still very much think it's best to keep this information localized here, as I mentioned above. GlassCobra 14:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE useless and is not for wikipedia the items are already included in the characters who has the millennium items so its not needed.Grimmjow E6 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate collective article for things of less than full individual notability. the sort of compromise that should be encouraged here. I think Glass Cobra has the right approach. Possibly a title change would be a good idea, but I leave that to the experts, and the article talk page is the proper place for discussing that. DGG (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Glasscobra. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft, Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any sources, how are we to say that anything in this article is verifiable, much less notable? One primary source is cited parenthetically but numerous other claims--including claims outside the scope of the fictional primary sourcing--are made without evidence. Several sections (and the lead) contain elements of original research (as of this revision). I'll try to remove some of the more blatant OR in a bit. At the very least this article needs some inline citations referencing the storyline claims (ignoring the fact that WP:WAF would suggest removal of most of the content here). Also, every image used in this page claims to be released into the public domain as the original work of the uploader. I assume this to be the case but they look like they were pulled from a webpage to me. Again, no sources, no verifiability, no article. If we do find primary sources, the article still does not meet WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. I'm not opposed to a merger of material to respective characters or similar. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel it applies here --T-rex 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dweeb. I have no opinion or arguments on this, but felt like stating at least that much. user:Everyme 06:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; despite the lack of sources, it appears that this is a notable aspect of the broader subject and that it needs an individual article for the sake of comprehensive coverage of that broader subject. Everyking (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2008 (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.