Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castleroid
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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Castleroid and Wolfensteinroid
- We need this one, finally casting out the reality between the truth and the false!!! -Jaakko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paavo (talk • contribs) 8:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I say keep it. It's a commonly used term. This is an accepted subgenre for the series, and those new to the series shoukld have a definition for this teme when they find it. - Darkmoon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.156.80 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong delete or whatever, plus food for thought: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.237.11 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with this article. 'Castleroid' has been used by fans for years since SotN and CotM's release. Even Konami reffered to it as 'Metroidvania'. Whoever put this up for deletion, could I ask you, why? - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.175.83 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think the term is useless, I don't care what hardcore mega gamers say on that message board -Jaakkooo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- The term is acceptable. If accurately describes this sub-genre, the Castlevania games starting with Sotn, and including Cotm, HoD, Aos, and finally, DoS. -Morgoth Galaxius —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.175.64.194 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Castleroid" is a widely used term in the Castlevania community, and as such it deserves to be properly defined. This article achieves this goal, and for that reason it should stay. -Pfloydguy2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.214.85.60 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- 'Jaakkooo', if you're the one who put this up for deletion, you're doing a bad job as a moderator. -anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.215.175.83 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- This term is a viable term as applied to the Castlevania gaming series. It does not need to be deleted. -DragonCub —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragoncub77 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, RickK memorial sockpuppet limit breached. (Oh, and all google hits are to forum posts.) I'm also listing the related article Wolfensteinroid here; that doesn't get any google hits at all. —Cryptic (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete fancruft dicdef with enough socks to sew a monkey.--Isotope23 15:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete both as neologisms, dicdefs. flowersofnight 15:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per above arguments. *drew 16:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete obviously. Neologisms at best, and the sockpuppet flood is seldom a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- This article has been a victim of sabotage from day one. Us viewers have learned that some people can roast out other people`s 100% Wikipedia approved (by the deletion policy) valid articles by:
1) Reporting a random article for deletion with no case, followed by
2) Spamming the feedback discussion with negative remarks, thus making the sentinels feel like all is bullshit.
3) Some other measures include measures like adding ridiculing other articles, like this "Wolfensteinroid" article was designed to do.
4) Editing delicious typos to a given article. Somebody edited and has been editing the Castleroid article to have the same childish typos from day one. Like "Castleloid", and RPG-element to "PPG-elements", three times now. Everytime I edit them accurately back again, somebody else is editing these same things back to have these same typos.
So this is pure sabotage. Sentinels please check the issue like it is, and mind the bickering, since it is most probably caused by one particular angry person, who wishes to sabotage an article he/she doesn`t like.
Paavo
- I'll tell you what. I'm assuming good faith here, so if you can post a link to the version of the page you want me to look at (past edit that you had fixed up), I'll take a look and judge based on that.--Isotope23 20:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete little-used neologisms. Metroidvania is more commonly used, in my experience, than Castleroid, but I'd vote delete on articles about either. (Wolfensteinroid is someone's in-joke term; the lame neologism used to refer to Metroid Prime seems to be First-person adventure, Nintendo's marketing term for the "genre".) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, a Castleroid and a Metroidvania are the same. Both terms are popularized by modern gaming media of today. The purpose of my article was to make clearer how the original term makers feel. And this is what I stated in this article, also. And both Castleroid and Metroidvania are adapted from the fandom, it is a generally accepted subgenre, as synthetic it might sound. Now if fandom`s opinion isn`t enough, I apologise. But since those terms live even inside even Konami`s official sites at http://www.konami.com/gs/officialsites/castlevania/ (adapted from the fandom, OUR fandom, mind you), and this article in itself is very coherent and on point, I do not understand what the problem is. I read the policy of deletion, and in my understanding everything should be quite kosher. Except the fact, that this article has had a huge amount of sabotage for some reason (like some obvious hinders, like that "Wolfensteinroid" article.) Funny, how this person has had more influence in the judging process, than the actual article makers! Well whatever, I trust you guys know the best, but I plea you would actually learn the situation, like by visiting Konami official sites, if nothing else. Been inside the Castlevania fandom from the eighties, and I sincerely didn`t mean this article as a joke, eventhough all this petty sabotage might make it seem like BS. So sentinels, all I ask is for you to get a neutral grasp, if you indeed need to control this article. -Paavo
- This might merit a one-liner in the Castlevania article. This is not an encyclopedic subject unto itself, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary in any case. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- If a commonly known subgenre of gaming isn`t a valid subject to make an article inside Wikipedia, I rest my case, and apologise. -Paavo
- It's not a subgenre; it's a set of shared characteristics in the recent games in one series. As such, it merits mention in the article for the series. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Still, even Konami recognizes it as a subgenre, and embraces it. Genralized by the fandom. But yes, it might be appropriate to mention it in the Castlevania article, if nothing else. -Paavo
- By all means, describe it in the Castlevania article. It's not a subject that merits its own article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Done and done. Thank you for the correction, and advice. -Paavo
- No problem. Any way I can help, let me know. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Done and done. Thank you for the correction, and advice. -Paavo
- By all means, describe it in the Castlevania article. It's not a subject that merits its own article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Still, even Konami recognizes it as a subgenre, and embraces it. Genralized by the fandom. But yes, it might be appropriate to mention it in the Castlevania article, if nothing else. -Paavo
- It's not a subgenre; it's a set of shared characteristics in the recent games in one series. As such, it merits mention in the article for the series. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- If a commonly known subgenre of gaming isn`t a valid subject to make an article inside Wikipedia, I rest my case, and apologise. -Paavo
- This might merit a one-liner in the Castlevania article. This is not an encyclopedic subject unto itself, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary in any case. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, a Castleroid and a Metroidvania are the same. Both terms are popularized by modern gaming media of today. The purpose of my article was to make clearer how the original term makers feel. And this is what I stated in this article, also. And both Castleroid and Metroidvania are adapted from the fandom, it is a generally accepted subgenre, as synthetic it might sound. Now if fandom`s opinion isn`t enough, I apologise. But since those terms live even inside even Konami`s official sites at http://www.konami.com/gs/officialsites/castlevania/ (adapted from the fandom, OUR fandom, mind you), and this article in itself is very coherent and on point, I do not understand what the problem is. I read the policy of deletion, and in my understanding everything should be quite kosher. Except the fact, that this article has had a huge amount of sabotage for some reason (like some obvious hinders, like that "Wolfensteinroid" article.) Funny, how this person has had more influence in the judging process, than the actual article makers! Well whatever, I trust you guys know the best, but I plea you would actually learn the situation, like by visiting Konami official sites, if nothing else. Been inside the Castlevania fandom from the eighties, and I sincerely didn`t mean this article as a joke, eventhough all this petty sabotage might make it seem like BS. So sentinels, all I ask is for you to get a neutral grasp, if you indeed need to control this article. -Paavo
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
