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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy gameplay[edit]

Final Fantasy gameplay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially a huge gameguide. It describes gameplay elements of each Final Fantasy game, one by one, and even goes into really curious details like patent ID numbers, number of cards or magic spells and even lists of metals used in armor. I am really wondering what the point of the article really is. Even the article seems to reluctantly admits that there isn't much point, since the "Reception and legacy" section contains barely one sentence simply stating that the Final Fantasy series "is credited with defining the structure of subsequent role-playing games", without going into any sort of explanation or giving any arguments as to why it is notable and defining. This article can only be useful to hardcore fans of the series, and even then, they are probably more likely to check specific FAQs or articles at the FF Wikia rather than this article. For anyone else (i.e. the general public), the section at Final Fantasy#Gameplay already summarizes everything notable, important and relevant about Final Fantasy gameplay. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got this crazy idea where the gameplay of a videogame is described in the "Gameplay" section of the game's article, and any common themes within a series is described in a series article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree. Redundant, already covered better and more concisely elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can be summarized in each individual article, and an overall summary of a few paragraphs can be covered in the series article. --Teancum (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tember 2010 (UTC)

• Comment deletion is not cleanup. While we're not a gameguide, WP:Article spinout is also relevant here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge. Wikipedia is not a guide of any kind. Maybe the topic of this could have a mention in Final Fantasy articles? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the article, I saw some information that could be merged to other articles. The page itself is not currently encyclopedic, but if it could be re-written, then maybe it could be kept. But otherwise, delete the article and merge other parts to other articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:NOTGUIDE. Also, not encyclopedic. And not very interesting (but that's probably just me). -- BenTels (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's a really well sourced article from what I can tell. Lots of independent WP:RS and the like. I'm going to look more closely at it later, but I don't think this is as open and shut as the discussion to date would indicate. At the very least it should be a merge to somewhere (Final Fantasy I should think). Hobit (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure any of the delete !votes have a leg to stand on here. Meets WP:N by a wide margin and isn't a how-to manual (which is what WP:GAMEGUIDE refers to). Could someone siting WP:NOTGUIDE explain how it applies? Hobit (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Oh, absolutely, it's well sourced and certainly meets WP:N. But I disagree with you on WP:NOTGUIDE – large tracts of this article read (to me at least) exactly like an instruction manual for a game. Just to be clear though: I'd be willing to change my !vote if someone did a rewrite; I'm not saying that all the content is hopeless. -- BenTels (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy, clearly there is useful information and plenty of sources that could help improve other articles, at the very least. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy long enough to be moved/merged/trimmed somewhere more appropriate (Final Fantasy#Gameplay or Wikia?), though the main contributor User:Randomran doesn't seem to be active as of late. It's well researched at the least. Certainly a good bulk of the article's content could be kept as Gamespot and IGN both have long articles dedicated to the series' history and evolution.[1][2][3] As for the mention of such things as patent ID numbers, that's really more of an example of good research. SharkD  Talk  22:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Sjones23. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 22:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'm unsure right now, but Hobit does have a valid point regarding not necessarily violating WP:GAMEGUIDE. However, I am concerned about the high quantities of original research present as well as relative lack of real-world relevance. Moreover, this source in the "Reception and Legacy" section indicates that the Final Fantasy games – not the series' gameplay – have been considered influential. "Well-sourced" doesn't necessarily equate to meeting WP:N when all you do is include information sources not necessarily relevant to the series' gameplay (most of them culled from other Final Fantasy WP articles) and attempt to blend them together. –MuZemike 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going with Keep the article has significant problems with OR, but I think the topic itself is not in violation of NOTGUIDE and clearly meets our general notability guideline by a lot. I'm loath to take a hatchet to it while it's at AfD, but the OR can be fairly easily removed and I'll volunteer to do so if it's still around. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Userfy I think after a lot of trimming, this could be a quality article. Final Fantasy is a giant series, so it needs a separate Gameplay article. It has plenty of sources. Plenty of games have gameplay articles. Just type in "Gameplay of" and see what pops up. Pokemon, World of Warcraft, Dragon Quest, etc. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see a policy rationale for deleting this article. Just a bald assertion that this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. But it looks to be pretty well sourced, to independent and reliable sources no less. Definitely enough to verify that this is a notable topic. (Contrast with Final Fantasy character jobs, which has almost no independent sources.) Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 04:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not seeing how this article is a guide. I'm not seeing any parts that are guiding you on how to beat the game or anything like that. It appears to be a study of gameplay elements which have remained relatively constant over one of the longest running video game franchises. Much of it is well-sourced and well done, while much of it needs a major cleanup. SnottyWong ^converse 04:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Userfy - Article needs fixing, not deleting. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Showing various notable and constant aspects of these games, which are insanely successful, is quite encyclopedic. Its something someone could actually learn from. And by Keep, I mean keep the article, don't delete 90% of it. Articles exist for those who actually read them. Dream Focus 05:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously parts need major attention, but as somebody who has no interest or experience in this topic, I found that this article was actually a fairly clear and relatively well-sourced explanation that largely avoided the "trivia trap". Those are good signs, and I can see no way this material can be migrated without losing its structure or coherence. TheGrappler (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2010 (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.