Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination)

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 was Closed to allow improvement as requested. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars[edit]

Still the same abomination that tries to double as the main article for the game Henke37 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Taric25 19:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - There is currently an effort to clean up the article by the VG Project Cleanup department. I feel that an attempt to clean up the article should be made to see if the left over content is worth keeping. Going through the sizable content of the article and the available sources is a large undertaking. But with the article up for deletion, that doesn't allow for much time to adequately clean up. I ask for the deletion nomination to at least be put on hold. If after it has been cleaned up and it still does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion, then by all means delete it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose - I agree with Guyinblack25. Since we have a current effort to clean up the article, then we should take time to do that. Guyinblack25 has offered to help and is admitidly not totally familiar with the subject and needs time to go through the wealth of information afforded. Thus, a deletion nomination is not currently condusive to our efforts. I echo that we should put this on hold. Taric25 19:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant sections (Creation and Reception) to the main article. The rest can be scrapped. TTN 20:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN. Taric25 21:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WIkipedia is NOT a game guide site. We do not need to have the locations of all the 1 up chests in the game, nor the HP refillers and so on. ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, which is why I feel that a deletion process should be put on hold and time should be given to clean up the article to reduce the amount of game guide content in the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  - And yet, such efforts seem to have been promised at the last AfD, and we're back. ThuranX (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you check the edit history, you will see that efforts to clean up have already begun and much more is in the works. All I'm asking is at the very least to put the AfD on hold. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - In the last AfD, the article looked like this. That pretty much speaks for itself. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop AFD for time being - If there is a process underway to retain notable information, it should be allowed to go foreword, especially since that process was ongoing before this AFD started. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TTN above. Clearly fails WP policies. Eusebeus (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Henky37 is a suspected sockpuppet of User:TTN. Please cite specific Wikipedia policies and guidelines if you believe that this fails. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:VG/C efforts and WP:PROBLEM. User:Krator (t c) 17:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, since the problem is surmountable. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if there is a video game wiki out there. ThuranX is correct, Wikipedia is not a game guide and it is not a place for such minute detail and fancruft. Collectonian (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here is arguing that the excessive game content should stay. The only thing being asked is for the AfD to be put on hold as it has already been expressed that efforts to remove such content are already underway. If after it's been cleaned up it still does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion then feel free to continue the AfD and remove the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I agree with Guyinblack25, because since we're currently fixing the article to get up to where it should be, we should take take the time to remove minute detail. Also, Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Listcruft are essays, so please argue on the basis of policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability. Speaking of notability, guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles, per Wikipedia:Notability##Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. Instead, we should focus on Wikipedoa:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and if you look on the article's talk page, we are discussing exatly just that. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop AFD for time being - per Judgesurreal. --Maniwar (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice against relisting If contributors are willing to work it and either make good or perform a merge and redirect, then I see no burning need to delete this article this second. Squaresoft games have always attracted a lot of interest and that has resulted in a number of our VG featured articles being about their games, perhaps the considerable volume of cites here can contribute to another one? If the article fails to improve over time, it can always be relisted and (providing a reasonable amount of time is given) nobody can say they didn't receive fair warning. Someone another (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely up-front, I don't believe that this list of locations is any more suitable for a WP article than the countless others which have or will be deleted, is there some significant coverage of locations by secondary sources that I've missed? What does bother me is the thought of so many potentially useful cites getting deleted. It's going to take time to pick the bones out of it, but if that results in the main game article moving closer to FA status and contributors are willing to put the time in then it'll be worth it. Someone another (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and that's all we asking for: time to put our work into it, so it'll be worth it. Also, this article started out a list of locations, but it has now become a world article. After this AfD is over, we should rename it. See World of Final Fantasy VIII and Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Taric25 (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, very game guide-ish, and the parts that aren't game guide-ish are just copies of the article for the main game. I can't even see how this would be improved Knowitall (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, nobody is arguing that the information is not game guidish nor is anybody arguing to keep that content in there in its present state. All that is being asked is more time further clean up the content to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Clean up has already begun, even before this AfD begun and progress is being made. It has also already been expressed that if the content does not meet standards after said clean up, then the AfD can continue. I also find it odd that of all the editors wanting to delete this, only one has addressed the request for more time. Is such a request that unreasonable? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Could you please identify which sections you believe copy the main article and how? Taric25(talk) 18:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concept & Creation and Reception. It seems like they're just copying the main article, and the rest of the article is still horrible.Knowitall (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have to agree with you on the "Concept and creation" section, I feel it should be pointed out that the "Concept and creation" section has yet to be cleaned up. Also I don't see how the reception for the setting is a copy of the reception of the game. One focuses on the overall reception of the game and the other focuses on the reception of the setting and graphical appearance. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Stop AFD for time being. The article is already looking a lot better. The Prince (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.