Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arwing

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 Star Fox (series). (History preserved, so merging can be done later if needed.) WaltonOne 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arwing

Arwing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a gameplay element that does not have real world information to establish notability. The specifics are covered within the various articles (though a small section under List of characters in the Star Fox series#Star Fox team may be warranted), and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Collectonian (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep I know Wikipedia is not a game guide, but this is a fictional aircraft that is rather prominently shown and used in a popular video game series. If you wanted an analogue of Arwings and Star Fox, one would be the Death Egg and Tornado in the Sonic the Hedgehog series of video games. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

  • It's not really a character (I think), so I would say no. But if you can trim it to two or less paragraphs (preferably using info from the intro and from #Appearances in other games) and merge it somewhere else, why not. But it's probably best to transwiki it and link there. http://starfox.wikia.com/wiki/Arwing has a pretty good basis where additional material can be added. – sgeureka t•c 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • No, but it uses the GFDL like wikipedia does, which makes transwiki'ing easy, especially if you'd otherwise lose the article completely. – sgeureka t•c 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd rather it stay on wikipedia. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 23:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Then the articles you may care about will need to follow wikipedia policies and guidelines, which can be pretty strict (because the goal is to write a good encyclopedia, not a fansite.) – sgeureka t•c 23:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if they follow the rules if they'll be deleted indiscriminately by overly zealous users anyway. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen an article that follows all rules being deleted. And again, please be careful with your wording. Goodnight. – sgeureka t•c 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge No real references due to a total lack of notability. It can probably be summarized on the series' page, although I do not see how that can be the case due to the way Star Fox (series) is currently structured. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 00:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - article entirely consisting of in-universe details with no sources establishing real-world notability. Seriously, dedicated wikis such as Wikia's are the best place for this sort of thing, not an encyclopedia. --Stormie (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The subject is not notable, so it should be deleted. However, after deletion, it may be a good idea to recreate as a redirect to the video game. I (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT#GUIDE/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom Will (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Its just plot repetition without any notability, should not have been un redirected. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Star Fox (series) as a valid search term. The article's nothing more than the sum of its parts, repetition of individual games' plots and has demonstrated no notability beyond that. Someone another (talk) 16:53, 16 December 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.