- 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 keep. No consensus to delete, but cleanup is needed.. ~Eliz81(C) 09:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Races in The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article has no notability or referencing, and is just an in-universe redescription of the plot and characters sections from various Legend of Zelda video games. As such, it is pure duplication in an unencyclopedic way. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete or rewrite I see no reason to delete it. --businessman332211 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about the points I have raised? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am working on that. I think that it can be rewritten. My "only" complaint when it comes to deleting articles, is I generally feel only they should be deleted as a last possible resort. You are right about certain facts (it's entirely in-universe), and it has no references. I am having a really hard time coming to terms with this "in-universe" perspective. I am trying to understand certain parts of that one policy (we recently spoke on your talk page about it). So, I am thinking of potential ways.--businessman332211 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about the points I have raised? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Rewrite - It certainly needs clean-up and referencing, but I think it is a useful article to help explain the various races and in turn, the characters of the series. I have made many suggestions to change it in accordance with the MOS which were rejected (ironically these suggestions have helped improve similar articles). Perhaps now they can be taken consideration. I feel that if it is rewritten it can become acceptable for Wikipedia. - .:Alex:. 17:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What suggestions were those, again?Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this page shouldnt be deleted some people like looking at stuff like this and add stuff find out info on the races. without this page there would be no way for someone to compile facts on a race without searching tons of pages a.k.a wasting there time.
- Now would be a great time to show that this article has any notability, such as how the races were developed and other such. From having helped save the Link article several times, and barely having enough development information for that article, this more obscure topic probably doesn't have a chance. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Is the problem that the article IS not encyclopedic, or cannot be encyclopedic? If the former, please copy it to me userspace so I can transfer it to the wikia. If the latter, then anyone complaining about the article needs to work to fix it. I'm not very good at finding secondary sources, and even though in-universe sources would be acceptable, I really don't have the time to do deep text-searching and rewriting.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now would be a great time to show that this article has any notability, such as how the races were developed and other such. From having helped save the Link article several times, and barely having enough development information for that article, this more obscure topic probably doesn't have a chance. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My vote is that it cannot be encyclopedic, since it has no references to establish notability. If it had such references, it would be notable, and most likely encyclopedic. You should probably transfer it to a fan wiki where it would be useful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I feel that this article has gotten to a point where many of the additions are not notable. Perhaps if the article is rewritten to cover only the main races in the series it can be encyclopedic (Zora for example is a main race in the series and has quite a few references. The HoHo tribe on the other hand is barely notable and has no references)
- If so great, but we need to establish a lot of referencing for this article if we are going to assert notability and keep it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The HoHo tribe now has a reference and is as important as the Tokay which does not any references and yet is still a race in the game LegendLiver (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ....information INSIDE an article does not need to be notable. Only relevant and verifiable. The topic itself needs to be notable, and even then, that is a guideline, not a rule - notability is suggested in that it virtually guarantees NPOV, V, and NOR. People are getting on this whole bint about notability, where they interpret it to be more demanding than it truly is.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Rewrite- It has the potential to be a useful and informative guide for this extraordinarily popular game- notability is established due to this immense popularity.LBEAR (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to tell you, but Notability isn't inherited. For example, if you found a cure to cancer, you would be very notable. But just because you are notable doesn't mean an article about your dog, your toenails, or your favorite ice cream would be. Just an FYI. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability, in and of itself, is not one of the criteria for deletion - it is a sign that there could possibly be a violation of the guidelines, but so long as the article is WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, the article is acceptable. Notability is only a factor that often, but not always, supports those requirements. This article is supposed to be a conglomeration of the data from those character sections, yes, as well as using information the games and "Hyrulepedia" provide. Yes, there's probably a fair bit of OR (which can be easily cut out - we tried to get a cleanup started at one point, but not enough people at the time were available for working on the page). Yes, it could benefit from a "reception and criticism"-type section (though this, also, is not required). But overall, the page can be brought up to snuff easily.
- Also, in regards to: "I hate to tell you, but Notability isn't inherited" - that is in reference to related subjects. This is a part of a subject that has been split off due to continuity and size concerns - ergo, as sub-article, which is valid according to the guidelines. It is an important part of the series that has little ability to be merged without extending the destination absurdly or violating undue weight and bias (i.e., by choosing which are "worth mentioning", and related conceits).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to tell you, but Notability isn't inherited. For example, if you found a cure to cancer, you would be very notable. But just because you are notable doesn't mean an article about your dog, your toenails, or your favorite ice cream would be. Just an FYI. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep with potential but I admit that only the presence of the Zoras and the Gorons as major recurring races save it for me. I did a quick Google search, and there seems to be some merchandise for the races.[1] There is also an (official?) encyclopedia [2] that would help to source most things. Additionally, since races are all in all much more recurring in the Zelda games than individual characters, I'd kind of approach this article like I would usually approach List of characters - this is at least a weak keep, as I can see a pretty good potential after some rewriting. – sgeureka t•c 01:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this article have any potential? All we've had is a rephrasing of Wikipedia verifiability criteria and original research, which the article is in violation of, and one "reference" from an in-universe encyclopedia and an instance of merchandise, which would help bolster the main series article or more probably the characters of article. A notable topic needs to have a lot of information available, and what has been established so far doesn't come close. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...how is it in violation of original research? If you see any specific points, please remove them, but reporting what the game shows does not count. As for the in-universe encyclopedia - yes, we'd be relying a lot on in-universe sources - however, this is acceptable for fiction, so long as we watch out for the possible dangers of using them - we don't accept character's words as incontrivertible, etc.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without actual out of universe referencing, the article cannot establish notability be verified, or prove that the points or views expressed are not OR. I love the games, but I cannot tell you whether the information contained in the article is factual or not, but if there is nothing to say about this subject except what you can figure out from playing the games, meaning no creator commentary, development history, early sketches, cultural impact/popularity, it would be inappropriate to allow it to have its own article due to a lack of encyclopedic content. Besides, its already mentioned in the plot and character sections of the zelda games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...how is it in violation of original research? If you see any specific points, please remove them, but reporting what the game shows does not count. As for the in-universe encyclopedia - yes, we'd be relying a lot on in-universe sources - however, this is acceptable for fiction, so long as we watch out for the possible dangers of using them - we don't accept character's words as incontrivertible, etc.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 02:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ....none of those things, besides possibly cultural impact, are actually required. In-universe referencing is only cautioned against because 1) you can take a throwaway comment as "word of god" (which this article does not) and 2) you can assume that an appearance of something is how it always appears (which we have not). Yes, it could profit extremely well from all those sections, but they are not required.
- And where is it mentioned in any plot or character section? The character sections usually avoid discussing the races for reasons of redundancy, and stick to named characters, not groups. To prove that it is not OR, we only need to add in more citations to in-game quotes, which we have been working on - however, few editors are still working on the page. I can tell you from experience, though, that almost everything there is based on a quote or example from the game - it would just take a while to source everything. Put up a note on the project page (since it seems that they don't even know an AfD is going on), ask for them to help fix the article. This subject does have value and can be salvaged.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this article have any potential? All we've had is a rephrasing of Wikipedia verifiability criteria and original research, which the article is in violation of, and one "reference" from an in-universe encyclopedia and an instance of merchandise, which would help bolster the main series article or more probably the characters of article. A notable topic needs to have a lot of information available, and what has been established so far doesn't come close. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (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.