Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarf (Legend of Zelda)

Dwarf (Legend of Zelda)
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete

Fancruft substub orphan (linked to only by a redirect, Dwarves(zelda)) with no useful information or notability. The dwarves in Zelda aren't even notable in their respective games. Delete. Andre ( talk )A| 16:38, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. Gamaliel 16:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought I knew Zelda in and out, it having been one of my favourite series for a long time. Dwarves? And indeed, they are so obscure that I hardly remember them even with the article's reminder. Subtrivial. Delete --Improv 17:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Trivia at best. Geogre 18:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow. Amazingly trivial. Delete. Lacrimosus 20:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trivial - I've said it before, and I'll say it again - videogame spinoff articles have the ability to drown all other Wikipedia content. Thousands of items, multiplied by thousands of games -- the mind boggles. This bring back memories -- Biggoron Sword, anyone? - RedWordSmith 01:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:36, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete article and redir (created by move, so no history). My favorites were the Hover Boots and Zora Tunic. No redir--they're both orphans, anyway. Niteowlneils 01:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of thing that can make for a good, interesting detail in a featured article, but when it stands alone and without context it looks silly, and nobody thinks it's worth including. I don't know, ideally merge and redirect and use as the basis for a further expansion of the Link to the Past article; otherwise just delete. I'd also like to register my dissatisfaction with the use of terms like "fancruft" and "pseudoinformation". Everyking 04:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would like to indicate that I really like the term "fancruft", and see no problem at all with it. I hope not to see it eliminated, and wonder why some people want it out. --Improv 08:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Gah. Delete. - Vague Rant 09:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mrwojo 14:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. &mdash;tregoweth 04:16, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)