Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeon (The Legend of Zelda Series)

Dungeon (The Legend of Zelda Series)

As one can tell from this article's talk page, deletion sentiment has been simmering all the way since it was first created. The article author's WP:OWN-y attitude and stubborn refusal to justify contentious statements in the article with sources has not helped any. At any rate, these are not deletion reasons. I contend that the article does not cover a notable topic; there is nothing that makes Zelda dungeons any more notable than dungeons from any other game in the genre. Sure, dungeons exist in Zelda games, but that does not make them a notable topic to write an article about. The whole article amounts to poorly repeating what the "Gameplay" sections of each individual game article say, except with more WP:OR and unverifiable statements. Axem Titanium 19:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a non-notable topic not backed by any reliable sources. At most, it deserves to be a sub-section of gameplay in the series article. TTN 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Primarily WP:OR with no reliable sources to demonstrate notability of the topic. --Sesameball^Talk 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely OR, already covered by "Gameplay" sections of game articles and the series article. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unsourced information. Should be merged to main Zelda page under gameplay if possible. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Okay. Everybody here probably expects that I'll weigh in on this debate, especially since I have SUCH a WP:OWN-y attitude about it (tell me YOU don't about YOUR OWN articles). This article was originally going to discuss dungeons in video games in general, but I could not conceive of any other games that really have "dungeons" in the sense that the Zelda series does, so it turned into a heavily Zelda-based article, which does include a loose definition of a "dungeon" in the sense used outside of the Zelda series. I don't feel that this subject, whether of Zelda or otherwise, gets proper treatment anywhere on Wikipedia, and so I set out to fill a perceived need for such a definition, and though some things that are mentioned in this article are similar to those in the articles written on each individual game, I haven't repeated anything. I put everything into my own words, with several sources to back some of the stuff up, while most of what is written herein can be found by anyone who has a console and a game. A lot of the video-game-related content on Wikipedia is written with the games as the basis for the majority of the information given in the articles, yet most people don't seem to have a problem with that. I don't doubt that the Zelda dungeons have served as the basis and model for many other things. Video games are a strong influence in modern cultures across the world. Zelda is one of the largest components in that category. Dungeons, which are one of the series' most prominent features, are part of the Zelda series and beg a definition, which cannot currently be found on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for helping people improve their ideas, not tearing them down, but that's all I've gotten about this article so far.Cocoapropo 02:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, no, that's not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about building a premier encyclopedia on the web. Of course, that often means helping editors improve their ideas... but it also means there are many policies we must follow, such as the ones we've mentioned - like WP:V and WP:OR (and in this case WP:NOTE, since we're discussing whether the article should exist). As I mentioned in my delete vote, the problem with the article is that it is largely original research and has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Also, I would respectfully suggest that most editors are, in fact, fully capable of taking a detatched approach to articles they created or may have strong personal feelings about. --Sesameball^Talk 02:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR per Hyper Dragon. I, for one, don't feel that way about my own articles, most of which look completely different from when I first created them by now. JuJube 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Most of my "research" comes straight from the games themselves. One thing I was wondering about is that I noticed that the Hyrule article hasn't been nominated for deletion, even though it only has a small handful of sources, most of which are on one topic within the article, and none of which are notable or official that I can see, and most of the rest of the article is from the games themselves or player observation. What's your take on this, I wonder? If you are going to apply it to me, apply it to this situation and all others.Cocoapropo 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I reformatted your edit only so it doesn't disrupt the rest of the daily AfD page - nothing personal. As for your question: please reference WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Sesameball^Talk 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, and opinion with no reliable sources, and no notability -- Whpq 15:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Cocoapropo, your research is called source based research (as in primary source). Look here WP:OR and it will tell you about source based research, and how it can come straight from a video game, and that it is not OR at all. It will also tell you that primary sources such as this are allowed on WP, even though a lot of editors forget that. All you need to do to save your article is find some reliable secondary sources to back up you primary source. Nintendo power, news articles, fan cites ext. I believe that this is a notable topic and the most that should be done is move the whole thing to The Legend of Zelda (series) under its own heading. Obviously Zelda is notable, and you can't talk about Zelda without talking about the dungeons. Also, yes the article does need cleaned up, but thats not a reason to delete it. Cocoapropo, another thing about WP, unfortunately information added does need sources. And unfortunately again, you don't need sources to delete something. Saying "I think this is true" holds no ground whatsoever, but saying "I think this is false" is a valid argument. Its in no way fair, but its the way WP is run. Viperix 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]