Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/FAQ (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was. keep Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/FAQ
I agree that this page was useful while the game was in development, but after release, it is no longer of any use. Most of the information here deals with avoiding speculation, which is no longer a problem. All of the other information here (release date etc.) is in the main article too. User:Krator (t c) 08:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Time to give this soldier a eulogy; its use has ended. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 08:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

KeepIt should stay untill the game is realeased in North America.--Flipsy13 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's useless now. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per consensus on the previous deletion discussion. Ourai  тʃс 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I say keep it until it comes out in NA. Even though it is out in Japan, there is still a lot of repeating questions. Epass (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All of which are effectively made moot because the game has already been released in Japan. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree people will keep asking these questions until it comes out in their regions.VatoFirme (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. All questions relating to the game have been effectively answered by the Japanese release.  --Son (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mark as archived. This is basically a talk page archive with an unconventional name.  I don't see what part of the deletion policy provides for the deletion of this material, or why it's deletion would seem to be an action of benefit.  Shouldn't it simply be marked as archived like any other old talk page, but preserved as part of the discussion record?  Or even kept as a reference for one way to deal with certain types of pages that attract lots of newcomers who all have the same questions? --JayHenry (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is because the page is not an archive, Jay. It's an interpretation of archives at best, but it is not an archive per se.  Further, the consensus attained by the last MfD was that, once the game was released, the page would get deleted.  The game was released almost two weeks ago in Japan, making anything it talks about in there a moot point. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 09:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I'm not meaning to play tedious semantics, but an archive is just a repository of old records and documents.  "Archive" doesn't mean, "inactive page with discussion in the form of threaded comments."  This is part of the record on how the article was created.  We don't delete old to-do lists, we don't delete old peer reviews, and I don't see this as different from those cases. --JayHenry (t) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a repository of old records and documents, either. As I said, it's an interpretation of them. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The FAQ is itself a document. --JayHenry (t) 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is archived, just put a link to it with the SSBB archives, like you would a review or peer review. It seems like a good solution. It is still viewable, but not a real document. Epass   Talk  Contribs
 * But it's not necessary, in its current state or an archived state. Any questions on the FAQ are/should be addressed in the article, not in a FAQ that existed because there was too much extraneous information coming in about a game in development.  As I said before, the release in Japan has effectively answered all questions that the FAQ lists.  --Son (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep until the US release, then delete it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The page has served its purpose and is no longer necessary with the game's release. Comandante  Talk  19:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Archive. Basically, it's an extension of the talk page that can be archived.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - yes it's an unconventional page, it's also less than 30 days since the last discussion closed and talk pages (and their subpages) aren't normally something we should be deleting unless they are unrelated to the Project or are nothing but vandal junk. Keep per User:JayHenry.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion- Look at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, they have an FAQ right on the talk page, perhaps the same could be done with this one, just auto-hide it until a user clicks Show- penubag  (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The talkpage appears to have been used to help people write the article. As such it had a purpose like any other talkpage archive. We don't delete old talkpages as long as the article stays up, and I see no reason to make this one an exception. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The page was kept last time with the caveat that once it became moot due to the game's release, it would be deleted. There's no reason to keep this page if everything on it is mooted; the whole reason the FAQ was set up in the first place was to try and stop rampant speculation. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as important to the article and per Doug, or archive if you're really dead-set against it. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge We should merge it into the talk page of brawl. This page does acknowledge some very good points but it need not have it's own page. Just put it onto the talk page and be done.
 * Keep or Merge. It doesn't really matter, but this FAQ definitely cannot be deleted, because it will save a lot of editors from answering the same questions every time a discussion is archived. Also, editors now have a place to point to when someone complains about their edit being deleted or reverted. --haha169 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This point no longer holds true due to the game having already been officially released in Japan. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it would save a lot of time by regular contributors that would be wasted if the same questions are continually asked, whereas this will answer them with little interruption. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I reiterate that the game has already been released in Japan, meaning that any questions asked can simply be answered by the game itself. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 20:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I must point out that many people do not know how to read Japanese, or that they ask on the talk page without browsing other sites first.--Epass (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And I myself must point out that everything in the article and the Series article is based off of the already-released game, mooting that. Further, we have several users on the article's talk page who can read Japanese (I myself can do translations of simple hiragana and katakana). -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to say I completely agree with you. The Japanese release should have made these questions mute. But the fact is, a lot of people still don't know about the games details, and it is easier for them to write their question here than actually do some research. Maybe the FAQ could be shortened and added to the talk page like user:penubag suggested. It'll all be over in 3 weeks anyway. Epass (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.