Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biggoron Sword

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All of these articles are dicdefs related to the The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time video game. Many, but not all of them were created by Misery9944, who has since placed the information on these items in the main Ocarina of Time article. - RedWordSmith 07:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: An article The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time weapons and items was created on Aug 2. - RedWordSmith 06:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Yath 07:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems the articles are completely redundant with the information on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Aaargh. This must be someone's labour of love, but can one video game justify so many entries? Ianb 09:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Noisy 10:59, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the info, but suggest merging some of them into articles such as The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time weapons and items and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time places, or something like that. There isn't much to write about most of these. Maybe take the existent section in the main article listing all the weapons and items and replace it with a link to an article specifically devoted to that subject so as not to inundate the reader with detail. I'd oppose trying to squeeze all Ocarina of Time info into one article. Everyking 11:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that if new pages dedicated to specific aspects of the game are created, there are articles I have not listed here for deletion, either because they have a signifigant history, are in other Zelda games, or are not dictionary definitions, especially Skull Kid, Princess Ruto, Mido, Lake Hylia, and Epona. -RedWordSmith 17:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the info, what Mr. Everyking said above. bbx 13:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: One video game with, essentially, 2-3 subcategory pages? The video game entry ought to be able to easily contain this information via sections. Who is going to search "Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (weapons)?" Is there a reason that section breaks in the game article can't contain this info.? Geogre 14:39, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • No, but you search for the game and then see the link to the weapons/items article if that's what you're looking for. It's common practice, general overview in the main article and specifics in related articles. If all the detail we should have (and, I think, already do have with all these currently nominated pages) were to be packed into one article, it would be much too long. Everyking 15:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Fancruft. Complete waste of time & resources. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:40, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Heh. I'm pretty sure I've editted every single one of these articles (mostly because they pointed to the disamb page Link, instead of Link (Zelda)), rather than list them here, for fear of being accused of being a deletionist again (along with some others I believe should be included in the decision, such as Twins (Kokiri)). My view is very similar to Everyking's--I have no objection to Wikipedia having this information--but I am concerned about the level of granularity of individual articles. This is a good example of my general opinion that, if you have a bunch of related topics that can only ever have 2-3 sentences about them, put them in a combined article. In fact, I was already thinking of doing at least part of what Everyking suggests, although I was leaning towards, for example, putting all the boots and tunics in Link's clothing (I notice that Link (Zelda) (the main protagonist in this game, and near as I can tell, all the Zelda games) is not nominated), and many of the others in Link's weapons (with redirects, of course). However, since I actually have a !*@#($! job now, it wasn't going to be completed within the next 5 days. I would like to point out that, while there is significant overlap between the main Ocarina of Time article and these individual articles, there are numerous details in the individual articles that are not currently in the main article, so I would say Merge is more appropriate than flat-out Delete--the question being should they be merged into subtopics like weapons of..., characters in..., places in..., etc. or the main article, and I lean towards subtopics. Actually, I'd like to see the same principle applied to anime, manga, Charmed, LOTR, Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon, Digimon, comic books, etc.--for example, I'd rather have a comprehensive article about Objects in the House of Elrond (with a redirect from the name of each item listed) rather than having I don't know how many dozen 1-3 sentence articles about each item. I think we should be consistent--if we keep every single detail about all anime (which we currently seem to be doing), I see no reason to delete the details about this record-setting game. Niteowlneils 16:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but merge. - SimonP 17:41, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge all content with either Link (Zelda) or the game page and then delete. I can see individual articles on notable video game characters, but every single element from the game? No thanks. Maybe keep a few (those with special names such as "Biggoron Sword") as redirects, but not all. Postdlf 22:21, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge per Everyking if kept, although I think most of it belongs in a Wikibooks game guide. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs, a strategy guide, or repository for rephrasings of game manuals. Jeeves 21:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree. We are not GameFAQs, and there is no reason for these articles. Sunfist 9:54, 28 Jul 2004 (EST)
  • Merge. It has good information about the aspects of the game, however I have only seen the Saria page and cannot say if the other pages listed here are horribly redundant.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biggoron_Sword&oldid=357496214"