Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy items

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 redirect to Common themes of Final Fantasy. --Coredesat 02:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy items

Final Fantasy items (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Overblown list of trivial, crutfy fictional items. Article has been tagged with a Notability template since April but no sources have ever been added to establish the topic's notability. I therefore officially nominate it for a Redirect to the more general Common themes of Final Fantasy article. Kariteh 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - there has been many edits to this article over a long period; it would be a shame to lose so much work, unless there was an overwhelming reason for deletion. Possible alternatives would be to copy some or all of the text into a more suitable article. If most of the text is a candidate for moving, then maybe it might be best to simply keep this article! -- MightyWarrior 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Most of the content (the notable ones) have already been moved to Common themes of Final Fantasy, and Final Fantasy items had been redirected there, but it recently got un-redirected. Which results in the same information appearing twice in different places. Kariteh 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect or, if not possible, strong delete—article was semi-merged and redirected, but an editor has disagreed, so here we are. Heck, I created this page (along with two of the pages that were merged into here) more than a year/year and a half ago, but it's no longer acceptable on an encyclopedia. — Deckiller 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article has no citations, and no hope of getting any, and therefore its notability/veracity cannot be proven. Judgesurreal777 22:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin— some of this information was incorporated in the Common themes of Final Fantasy article, which means a delete is illegal per GFDL. Thus, all delete votes are technically redirect per nom. — Deckiller 14:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is too much information that could be considered usefull here that would be lost just by redirecting it. For example, there is no mention of the buster sword in the common elements page, and it is one of the most well known swords of the series. Granted, this page could use a cleanup, but we can't just merge everything into one giant article. JDub90 16:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Buster Sword is already covered in Cloud Strife. Kariteh 16:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Gunblade is also covered in Squall Leonhart. In reality, there is not much to say about weapons, armor, and items except for a basic overview and some recurring names and concepts. Once Gameplay of Final Fantasy is created, things will probably be more clear. — Deckiller 20:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: no intelligent reason to delete. How does deleting this in any way whatsoever possibly benefit anyone or Wikipedia?
  • The intelligent reason is that it violates WP:N. You don't keep an article because it's useful or deletion won't benefit anyone; the same argument could be applied to a game guide or cheat code list. --Teggles 04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Mindlessly and robotically voting to delete, I see…
      • Perhaps either of us have trouble with our eyesight, I saw a person agreeing with the (as of yet) unargued points raised in the nomination, and agreeing that it violates policies. I also saw him voting redirect. --Teggles 04:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • An editorial decision that should be worked out on the talk page and discussed at the FF Wikiproject rather than through AfD. While it's true that this article requires cleanup at the very least to meet Wikipedia's standards, it doesn't actually violate current policy (as per point 2 of WP:FICT, a merger of minor facets in fiction - and while items would normally be too minor even for this, this is across 15+ works, so it's a grey area.). An editorial decision to merge and redirect may well be warranted, and I may actually support such a thing, but immediately running to AfD seems overblown, as it's not like an edit war's broken out. SnowFire 02:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy close, if you're just asking for a redirect, do it yourself. Afd is for discussing deletions only. Axem Titanium 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
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.