David Eppstein (talk | contribs) m cat |
→Soul series mystical weapons: comment |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
*'''Strong keep''' as titular weapons of a major franchise that can easily be verified in game publications. Astonishingly notable weapons per [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-1080304-4174467?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Soul+Edge Soul Edge] and [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Soul+Calibur Soul Calibur]. Article meets notable guidelines and is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or fictional items. Material in article can be verified through everything from reviews of the game to published books about the games in addition to the games themselves and so cannot legitimately be called original research. MANY reliable third party sources can be used to verify these games, thus passing WP:V, but just need to be added per [[Wikipedia:SOFIXIT]]. [[WP:ITSCRUFT]] is never a serious reason for deletion. There are fundamental policy reasons that justify the strong keep for this article. Note regarding the claim that it doesn't meet the game guideline, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines&diff=214200913&oldid=213825588 who added that section]. Sincerley, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Strong keep''' as titular weapons of a major franchise that can easily be verified in game publications. Astonishingly notable weapons per [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-1080304-4174467?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Soul+Edge Soul Edge] and [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Soul+Calibur Soul Calibur]. Article meets notable guidelines and is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or fictional items. Material in article can be verified through everything from reviews of the game to published books about the games in addition to the games themselves and so cannot legitimately be called original research. MANY reliable third party sources can be used to verify these games, thus passing WP:V, but just need to be added per [[Wikipedia:SOFIXIT]]. [[WP:ITSCRUFT]] is never a serious reason for deletion. There are fundamental policy reasons that justify the strong keep for this article. Note regarding the claim that it doesn't meet the game guideline, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines&diff=214200913&oldid=213825588 who added that section]. Sincerley, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::* Please don't be misleading. The policy was there long before I got there. "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; '''neither are all the weapons available in a game.'''" That has been the consensus for a very long time. And the video game articles have reflected that consensus for a long time too. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
::* Please don't be misleading. The policy was there long before I got there. "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; '''neither are all the weapons available in a game.'''" That has been the consensus for a very long time. And the video game articles have reflected that consensus for a long time too. [[User:Randomran|Randomran]] ([[User talk:Randomran|talk]]) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::It's pretty clear Le Grand refuses to agree with game guide policies, so he chooses to think the policies don't exist. Which is disruptive, and not helpful to debates on video game weapon lists. [[User:RobJ1981|RobJ1981]] ([[User talk:RobJ1981|talk]]) 02:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' per Sephiroth BCR, and I note that the article also fails [[WP:PLOT]]. Also agree with Marasmusine: notability is difficult to establish due to the names of the weapons. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] ([[User talk:Jakew|talk]]) 21:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per Sephiroth BCR, and I note that the article also fails [[WP:PLOT]]. Also agree with Marasmusine: notability is difficult to establish due to the names of the weapons. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] ([[User talk:Jakew|talk]]) 21:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
**Even though these are titular weapons form a major game series that can be backed up by many reliable sources? Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
**Even though these are titular weapons form a major game series that can be backed up by many reliable sources? Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">[[User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|<span style="color:#009">Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles|Tally-ho!]]''</sup> 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:08, 26 May 2008
Soul series mystical weapons
- Soul series mystical weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No assertion of notability for these weapons that justifies their own article, and thus violates WP:NN. The information seems to be pulled entirely from the game itself, thus violating WP:OR. No reliable third party resources to verify these games, thus violating WP:V. If you remove the headings of the article, you realize that the article is entirely comprised of in-game plot information, and violates the WP:PLOT policy on excluding plot information except to provide a concise summary -- which this article does not. Also violates the WP:GAMECRUFT #3 guideline on lists of weapons being unsuitable for wikipedia articles. These are 5 reasons, 3 of them fundamental to wikipedia policy, that justify the strong deletion of this article. Randomran (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm tempted to think that these weapons might have notability outside the game, but with them being eponymous it's difficult to track down reliable coverage about them and not just the game. Article as presented fails WP:Writing about fiction guidelines and WP:Verifiability policy. Marasmusine (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any notability. Fails WP:WAF as it stands also for being completely in-universe. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep as titular weapons of a major franchise that can easily be verified in game publications. Astonishingly notable weapons per Soul Edge and Soul Calibur. Article meets notable guidelines and is consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on video games or fictional items. Material in article can be verified through everything from reviews of the game to published books about the games in addition to the games themselves and so cannot legitimately be called original research. MANY reliable third party sources can be used to verify these games, thus passing WP:V, but just need to be added per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a serious reason for deletion. There are fundamental policy reasons that justify the strong keep for this article. Note regarding the claim that it doesn't meet the game guideline, see who added that section. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't be misleading. The policy was there long before I got there. "The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the weapons available in a game." That has been the consensus for a very long time. And the video game articles have reflected that consensus for a long time too. Randomran (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Sephiroth BCR, and I note that the article also fails WP:PLOT. Also agree with Marasmusine: notability is difficult to establish due to the names of the weapons. Jakew (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even though these are titular weapons form a major game series that can be backed up by many reliable sources? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable elements of a fictional universe which have not received substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject, and the article is entirely plot summary with no real-world analysis or significance. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Even though they are incredibly notable elements of a recognizable fictional universe that have received substantial coverage from reliable sources and are significant to people in the real world, i.e. in the form of not just being the titular subject of video games, but also appearing as toys and life-size replicas? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)