![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2009 February 18. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. A difficult one. on the one hand, some serious effort has been put into this page, and it's a shame to see it go. On the other hand, this page is not really appropriate for what is, after all, an encyclopedia. This isn't the first time this type of discussion has taken place (although I think it's the first time the article in question has been so polished), I think this deletion review sums it up best. See also here and the other discussions it links to. There's been a pretty clear consensus over the years that these articles should not be included. I don't think we need a redirect, as it's a rather improbable search term. yandman 09:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Largely game guide content with little sourcing other than from fansites and irrelevant mythological research, the latter of which is wholly irrelevant to the context. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 22:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Numbers, numbers, numbers. Consensus is worthless if it's centred around ideas that violate policies, the wider consensus. Despite my repetitive replies to several people's posts above, no-one except you has truly partaken in this discussion on the keep side of things, so I'm assuming they have no deeper points to assert than "not really written in a game guide context".
Point is, the article is devoid of reliable sources, you and others have failed to show how policies support this article, therefore the article is deleted. That's Wikipedia. The end. Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 04:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply