Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arklay Mountains
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 Delete. An appropriate redirect can be set editorially. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arklay Mountains
original research plot summary for a fictional location. Ridernyc (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Resident Evil.Kww (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep/Redirect I say a new article with list of all fictional locations in Resident Evil series (Since there are so many). —Preceding unsigned comment added by UzEE (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and Redirect to a list of locations in Resident Evil or something of the sort, per UzEE. Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into a Resident Evil universe article of your choice. Roll a die to avoid the choice making. User:Krator (t c) 01:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as article asserts notability, is presented well, and is easily verifiable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- mind showing where exactly this article asserts notability?Ridernyc (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Arklay_Mountains#Arklay_in_other_media. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those are all Resident Evil films. To be notable, you have to be able to find references that occur outside of the Resident Evil franchise.Kww (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- These are fairly successful films. That is a good deal of people who will be familiar with this Mountain Range. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know better than to say things like that. If there are no reliable secondary sources, they aren't notable.Kww (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is not the same as fame or popularity. Grand Roi, please read Wikipedia:Notability. Pagrashtak 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Something that is that popular is notable and they are still making more movies and games in this series, so that notability is still increasing as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The movies are notable, and the games obviously, but that doesn't mean that the location is notable. just because the games are popular doesn't mean that all of their settings are. And the games aren't set there anymore, anyways.DurinsBane87 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again, Grand Roi, you need to read Wikipedia:Notability. You are saying that popularity implies notability, when this is simply not the case, and the guideline to which I'm directing you says this explicitly: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Pagrashtak 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello! I checked out the page you suggested, but it seems to be something still being written and revised with editors reverting each other even in the past couple of days, which seems to suggest that there is some disagreement among the community about what is and is not notable. Also, don't these mountains appear in the most recent game in the series, i.e. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Only in the sections taken from the first Resident Evil games. Resident Evil 4 and 5 take place in other countries altogether. And again, just because the game takes place there doesnt make it notable.DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grand Roi, the phrase I quote above, which you disregard in your arguments, has been in place since at least 2006. Granted, the wording has changed a little since then, but this is clearly not in dispute. I am beginning to find your actions at AFD disruptive, as you apparently have no intention of respecting Wikipedia guidelines. Pagrashtak 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would advise you to keep your personal opinions about other editors to yourself, Pagrashtak. Grand Roi has every right to present his vote. That's what this nomination is for. You might view disputable guidelines as rule of thumb, others view them as little more than yet another piece of overly binding instruction creep, so keep that in mind. I, for one, believe he has a point, and accusing him of ignoring guidelines whilst those arguing "delete" have clearly opted to present only the parts of said guidelines that they agree with is, to say the least, hypocritical. Gamer Junkie T / C 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're setting up a straw man. I have not expressed any personal opinions about other editors here, nor have I said that Grand Roi does not have the right to express his or her opinion. Meanwhile, you have called me a hypocrite. I think this has gone on long enough, so if anyone would like to continue this, feel free to contact me on my user page. Pagrashtak 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would advise you to keep your personal opinions about other editors to yourself, Pagrashtak. Grand Roi has every right to present his vote. That's what this nomination is for. You might view disputable guidelines as rule of thumb, others view them as little more than yet another piece of overly binding instruction creep, so keep that in mind. I, for one, believe he has a point, and accusing him of ignoring guidelines whilst those arguing "delete" have clearly opted to present only the parts of said guidelines that they agree with is, to say the least, hypocritical. Gamer Junkie T / C 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grand Roi, the phrase I quote above, which you disregard in your arguments, has been in place since at least 2006. Granted, the wording has changed a little since then, but this is clearly not in dispute. I am beginning to find your actions at AFD disruptive, as you apparently have no intention of respecting Wikipedia guidelines. Pagrashtak 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Only in the sections taken from the first Resident Evil games. Resident Evil 4 and 5 take place in other countries altogether. And again, just because the game takes place there doesnt make it notable.DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hello! I checked out the page you suggested, but it seems to be something still being written and revised with editors reverting each other even in the past couple of days, which seems to suggest that there is some disagreement among the community about what is and is not notable. Also, don't these mountains appear in the most recent game in the series, i.e. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again, Grand Roi, you need to read Wikipedia:Notability. You are saying that popularity implies notability, when this is simply not the case, and the guideline to which I'm directing you says this explicitly: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Pagrashtak 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The movies are notable, and the games obviously, but that doesn't mean that the location is notable. just because the games are popular doesn't mean that all of their settings are. And the games aren't set there anymore, anyways.DurinsBane87 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Something that is that popular is notable and they are still making more movies and games in this series, so that notability is still increasing as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is not the same as fame or popularity. Grand Roi, please read Wikipedia:Notability. Pagrashtak 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know better than to say things like that. If there are no reliable secondary sources, they aren't notable.Kww (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- These are fairly successful films. That is a good deal of people who will be familiar with this Mountain Range. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those are all Resident Evil films. To be notable, you have to be able to find references that occur outside of the Resident Evil franchise.Kww (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- See Arklay_Mountains#Arklay_in_other_media. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- redirect The mountain range isn't notable outside the fact that the games take place there. There's also alot of original research. DurinsBane87 (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- No assertion of individual notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is largely plot repetition, and is unsourced. In particular, the lack of secondary sources causes this article to fail to assert notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagrashtak 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - contributors should consider a gaming wiki for this material. No notability outside the series. Marasmusine (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (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.
