Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legend of Zelda Fan Community


 * 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 of the debate was Delete. Madchester 07:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda Fan Community
Forumcruft, fancruft, lots of nn people, linkspam. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - History is something I see on Wikipedia all the time. Why discriminate what kind of history we're looking at? That's ridiculous. Pissy people who don't like the way the page was written simply need to add their own little piece, or talk to the people who DID make it and talk to thema bout it. You people who want to delete it are people who think you matter more than you really do. Just because it's new doesn't mean you have ANY right to try and squash it down. Go find better things to do if you're bored, please. 68.228.73.35 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User's first and second edits. Scepia 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't post on this page anymore. You're just helping ensure that this page will be deleted. kthx. --Major Organ 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete it's a page about fan forums. And the fans who populate them. Can't get much less encyclopedic than that. Opabinia regalis 03:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - documenting the history of one of the biggest fan communities, give it some time to progress into something better please. We're still determining the format and structure.  --TSA 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Documenting a history on our own constitutes Original research, and isn't really our place. We need to let journalists and historians document the events, and then we synthesize their documentation into a summary. Since there's no basis of journalism or historical works about the Zelda fan community, there's no possible way we can do that with this article.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not a page about webforums, but instead describes the broad collection of sites and other mediums that the Zelda fan community exists in. In fact, the only times forums were mentioned was in addition to another, more relevant fact. I admit the article is rather new and underdeveloped, but that is no reason for deletion, but instead renovation. There is currently some dialogue within the talk page to figure out what needs to be done. If you guys feel the article contains certain violations, such as linkspam, those can be dealt with for sure, but the article itself serves a legitimate purpose. --Major Organ 04:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, note that virtually all of the above user's edits have been on the Legend of Zelda Fan Community article as well as on this AfD--TBC TaLk?!? 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've read the policies, you said "but instead describes the broad collection of sites" well [[WP:NOT|

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information + Wikipedia is not a mere collections of external links or Internet directories.]], sorry.-- Andeh 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I never stated it was a list of sites, but rather the history of an expansive community (or will be). As stated elsewhere, we're discussing how to rework the article in order to include notable events and moments in the history of the community instead of giving a summary of large sites to decrease the chance of spam. I also believe it is a notable enough community to pass the "indiscriminate collection of information" test. There are multiple Star Wars fan articles, and Zelda is notable enough for atleast a general overview. We will try and work on making it more encyclopedic. We just the time. --Major Organ 18:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sorry TSA, but I've always been of the opinion that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the fandom doesn't matter (in spite of the furry fandom, which has its own convention). Nifboy 04:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you mean "conventions". :-) Not to mention that the furry fandom is at least twenty or thirty years old, and - in its online incarnation - consists of what are likely thousands of web sites, rather than the maybe-fifty significant Zelda sites out there. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fancruft, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 04:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, fancruft--TBC TaLk?!? 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Total cruft. --Burgwerworldz 06:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Has some important information. It's not advertising the sites, it's just giving the facts. --Cygnus 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Users 4th edit, this edit being the first in 2006.-- Andeh 17:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fancruft.  This will lead to articles about the fan communities of every video game, musician, actor, television show, movie, etc etc.  --Musicpvm 07:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, hugely original research, impossible to document with verifiable sources as to what are important/notable events, etc. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, The article needs some work, but its aim is to document a huge fandom that has been around for 20 years, of one of the biggest video game series of all time. Lysia 08:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Users 2nd edit, 1st edit was on talk page of this articles talk page.-- Andeh 17:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am new to editing Wikipedia but I have followed the Zelda articles and their discussion for a long time. I quote from the announcement at the top of this page: You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. I have been in the online Zelda community since 1999, I have followed the series since the very first game, and have run a site of my own since 2001, therefore I feel I have a right to state an opinion here. Lysia 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or possible merge to Legend of Zelda, if any NPOV, verifiable info can be salvaged. Large, serious, prolific, and unique fan communities may warrant mention in the main article on their topic, but they do not need their own article. -- N  scheffey   (T/C) 08:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as I essentially concur with Night Gyr's reasoning above.--Isotope23 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the article consists of POV, fancruft and original research - when you remove that, I believe the article reads The. WilyD 14:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too bad if there's original research and blabla, it's the only way to document something like this, which is most certainly a valid entry. Hyrule 15:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for admitting that it's original research, and needs to be deleted. Your contribution is appreciated. WilyD 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NOR. A topic like this is inherently vanity/link spam.  Is there anything from outside the Zelda community?  If not, then it is also simply fancruft (I hate the term, but there it is). TedTalk/Contributions 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per above. Article fails on the three main content policies: No Original Research, Neutral Point of View representing views fairly and without bias, and Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, most of the links on the page fit Occasionally acceptable links — although fails because of the number of external links: "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link." — and the article also appears to fail Criteria for web content. TheJC TalkContributions 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Somebody used the Wikipedia is not a keeper of indiscriminate information argument. I read it over, and nowhere does it say "history" is unacceptable.  I find that argument rather weak as the own definition does not specifically say "history".  Just to point out - a hoax about a fake video game The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga has survived a AfD, and I swear that has less relevance than the history of one of the biggest fan communities on the internet.  It is obvious the people voting for deletion are 1) Biased against this article because they are non-fans or 2)Believe fan works have absolutely no merit in the referential realm to warrant an entry in this site.  There is an extensive history of Star Wars fan culture page, even more specific down to categories of works.  The Legend of Zelda fan community is a phenomenom and a pop-culture icon status, not just a blantant advertising article which has no profound meaning.  I concede the current version is not very reflective of that, but if this article was given more time to develop into something better, I believe the article would have better standing on this site.  Sometimes I feel Wiki is more of an oligarchy because there seems to be a faction who decides what stays and what goes, especially in the Zelda articles, and it baffles me as to the logic sometimes. Not to be too self-righteous and full of myself, but how the hell did a Zelda hoax The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga remain and the article somebody made for GANNON-BANNED was deleted?  The latter has more impact and presence and importance in the realm of Zelda than the hoax.  Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I feel part of these AfD are personal grudges against me, whic is totally unprofessional and crap.  Again, my argument - I do not get how the history of one of the biggest fan communities, not just any community, does not count as suitable material for this site. We can provide original research without a POV, and we can provide published citations from credible sources if you give us time.  You are judging this article on its infancy, when the future version will turn out to meet Wiki's standards.  But you are resolving this article to a Catch 22 - there is no way it can start off perfect and totally conforming to Wiki's standards - it needs time to get to that point.  I never got the AfD after such a short time.  Wiki's guidelines need to be ammended to either have AfSP, or AfD after a timeframe of significance to allow the article suitable time to develop into a proper Wiki article.  But I'm sure this will get deleted.  Perhaps it will be put at a more deserving place than Wiki. --TSA 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment if this does get deleted, perhaps Zeldawiki would welcome your contributions TSA. You could always transwiki this over there before the close of AfD if you are concerned this is going to be deleted from Wikipedia.  As for The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga, I'm not familiar enough with this particular case, but I know in some instances, hoaxes have been kept because they were so pervasive that they become notable simply for being a hoax.  Again, I don't know enough about the specifics of The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Saga to say if this was the reasoing for keep opinions on that particular AfD.  That article could use a rewrite though.--Isotope23 18:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, and move to a better title. A well-documented and detailed discussion of Zelda fan sites on the web is a notable topic worthy of inclusion, as quite a few of them have been notable in their own right, pulling in millions of hits, as well as their interaction. They were more important and centralized in the earlier days and are an interesting aspect of the early web. Finally, no one around is more qualified to document this stuff than TSA. I don't agree with everything TSA says, here or elsewhere, but I think this is an important topic. Deco 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Amending my comments: TSA didn't actually do most of the writing in this article, didn't mean to convey that, but he does review it regularly. Also, I think this article is a great place to merge articles about Zelda websites that aren't notable enough on their own. I'd suggest "merge into The Legend of Zelda series", but it's just too large a topic for adequate coverage in the space of that page. Deco 17:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as this is an important subject that many surely care about. I don't have much knowledge of the history of the fan community, so this is useful, and it is not a collection of facts, but rather a helpful page with good info. Scepia 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:TheJC and User:Musicpvm. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all similar comments above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  03:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per TheJC and nominator --Starionwolf 03:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per original nomination.  With regards to various arguments that it's "interesting," see WP:INTEREST. &mdash; Mike &bull; 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - entirely unreferenced, and not particularly notable. For pretty much every game or franchise there's some sort of fandom out there; the real question is whether it's sizable and active enough to take note of. This doesn't appear to be the case for Zelda, judging by the article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:06, 29 June 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.