Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character archetypes in the Fire Emblem series


 * 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. If anyone wants the content for another wiki, drop me a note - I'll undelete the material and send it to you. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Character archetypes in the Fire Emblem series
All uncited research. Not verifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Directly from the talk page of the article: "The research originated from GameFAQs" - hardly an encylopedic source. Also nominating Jeigan (archetype), which is the same thing but a specific case. Wickethewok 04:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could the nominator state why GameFAQs is not an acceptable source?  We can hardly expect a peer-reviewed paper in the Oxford Journal of Nintendo Studies. 69.108.49.138 04:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response - Please read WP:V for more info on verifiability. Note that anyone can submit any information to GameFAQs, which means we can't use it as a source.  Also, its preferential that you create a Wikipedia account if you wish to participate on AFD - it makes it easier to keep track of who says what.  Wickethewok 05:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Anyone can submit anything, but not all contributions are accepted.  GameFAQs has editors who determine which contributions are accepted. 69.108.49.138 05:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nom. This is full of OR and game-guide info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a game guide. Dionyseus 05:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- TheFarix (Talk) 12:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, at least until the peer-reviewed paper in the Oxford Journal of Nintendo Studies is published.  Proto ::  type  15:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if GameFAQs can be considered reliable, multiple sources are preferred to relying on a single one. Shouldn't really matter though since this is game guide info. Recury 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Davidpdx 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nom. This lacks notability and is not verifiable -- Alias Flood 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Zos 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks/Gaming wiki--Zxcvbnm 23:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Note that Wikibooks has officially cancelled the video games bookshelf, so it should probably be be StrategyWiki. --SevereTireDamage 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to deletion Much information will be lost if deleted without transwiki to Wikibooks. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You may save the content on your computer if you wish, thus preserving the content for your use. Wickethewok 02:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have just saved the article on my computer as a Microsoft Word document, thus preserving the content for fan use. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 20:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. &mdash;Hanuman Das 01:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per Zxcvbnm. RandyWang ( raves/rants ) 07:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Not to wikibooks, though. They don't allow this sort of material anymor.e  I suggest Encyclopedia Gamia.  This doesn't seem very encyclopedic.  Perhaps it could be with a different treatment, but it can be recreated if that's the case. Ace of Sevens 09:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What about transwiki to FEWiki.net? Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 00:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Make encyclopedic . It should be made encyclopedic, rathering than deleted or transwikied. WikiBooks does allow game guides.  Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The following is a quote from Jimbo Himself on 22 April in the computer and video games bookshelf talk page: " am unaware of any elementary school, high school, or college courses which require computer game walkthroughts as a text. Therefore, these all really MUST be deleted. They are a violation of the educational mission charter of the Wikimedia Foundation!  Take your time, find a new home, but this stuff really has to go." Ace of Sevens 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to FEWiki.net. That is the best thing to do with this. It would be the final decision. Here is a quote from FEWiki: "A major factor in the decision to start the FEWiki is the increasing amount of Fire Emblem content becoming available on Wikipedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to provide detailed information about almost anything, but the amount of non-encylopedic Fire Emblem content there was getting beyond a joke. And thus it was decided to create this wiki dedicated to Fire Emblem, to allow that sort of content and more." Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that there's nothing stopping you from transwikiing it at any time; you don't have to wait for the AFD to close to stick a copy on the game wiki. Proto ::  type  08:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many people in the Fire Emblem fandom agree that most of the "archetypes" listed are not really true archetypes. Therefore, not only is it debatable whether it's encyclopedic, but its reliability concerning its subject is questionable. --Kzer-za 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much of the content is contentious or outright fabricated. --144.137.32.87 02:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Jeigan (archetype). "Jeigan" is very much a widely accepted and used term among the Fire Emblem fan base, and while its specifics are debated, the core of its definition is agreed upon. The Jeigan article does at the very least an adequate job of making clear what is accepted by and large universally from what is debated over. However, Character archetypes in the Fire Emblem series is full of partial contradictions to its own wording and defines several terms in a way many would very openly disagree with. It further gives definition to terms effectively never used by even the niche group of the public which it should supposedly be pertinent to, and as such, should definitely be deleted. RunissKnight 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that things being "agreed upon" by fans is not a reliable source of anything and is probably original research. Also, welcome to Wikipedia.  Wickethewok 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Nabarl and Oguma sections. Like "Jeigan", "Nabarl" and "Oguma" are also widely accepted and used term among Fire Emblem fans. Nabarl and Oguma are analogous to Swordmaster and Hero.  The Nabarl and Oguma sections of the article are long enough to be separate articles.  They were originally separate articles.  Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am confused what your opinion is, Zanarukando. First you say you object to deletion, then you say "Make Encyclopedic" (whatever that means), and now you say you want to keep some specific part of it.  What exactly is your vote/recommendation?  Wickethewok 16:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That sounds consistant to me. They are endorsing a keep with a rewrite to make this fit Wikipedia's goals better (ie remove fancruft). Ace of Sevens 19:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. So his opinion is a partial keep with a rewrite - gotcha.  Wickethewok 05:49, 19 July 2006 (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.