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 redirect and protect. Secret ^account 14:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golden Axe characters[edit]

List of Golden Axe characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This series only has a few recurring characters (already covered in Golden Axe (series)#Characters), while the rest only appear in single games. The games are perfectly capable of covering their own characters, so this is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: TTN merged material from the list in the article. As per GFDL, proper attribution should be given by redirecting the page. Deletion is not a legal option. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE, and WP:N. Characters notability not established outside game, and, as nominator said, the info is already covered elsewhere.--Boffob (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant game guide information. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no notability outside the game (and not a lot within either). Fine to cover it within the games themselves. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been brought to my attention that some content from this article was merged into Golden Axe (series), in which case we need to redirect there for GFDL compliance. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Plausible search term for anyone remotely familiar with Wikipedia and discourages recreation until it's neccesary, Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — purely game guide material and unverifiable original research. MuZemike (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am a little curious about why it is a question for afd whether it is better to merge a group of related characters all in one place, or into separate articles,. If it is considered that they are best covered in the articles on the individual games, then it seems to me that a for a group of related games, clarity can be best served by having a comprehensive list, with links to the individual parts. We have such lists for thousands of similar cases, and I don't see why this is any different. But if there are a few repeating characters, and they are the major characters, then that gives a good reason for a comprehensive list which will have the fullest coverage, with the links running the other way. Or, of course, if the characters are major enough and the game important enough, having their own articles. DGG (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting that the nominator first gutted information from the article and moved it to the main[1] then proposed deleting this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.51.120 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — 71.139.51.120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Probably because the content was unnecessary and excess for the encyclopedia. MuZemike (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the Golden Axe article. Looking at that article, it is clear that there is a character section already put into place, so I don't see why that list can be grown to include a few other characters. Tavix (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or keep. TTN merged material from the list in the main article. As per the GFDL, proper attribution needs to be given, so we're not allowed to delete the history for the list. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Redirect to Golden Axe by the observations made by MacGyver and A Nobody that since content was already attempted to merge/redirect, the history must be preserved per the GFDL. However, my rationale remains the same as above. If users continue to revert-war over the redirect, then page-protection of the redirect will be necessary. MuZemike (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per DGG. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Once again, for the benefit of those who've just tuned in, if none of the members of a list have sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources which is not in-universe or gameguide content then the list as a whole fails to meet our notability requirements. That is the case here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect since there's no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. As stated in WP:V, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Randomran (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Evidently (I can't 100% tell) this discussion has been brought up on AN/I :Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_that_needs_to_be_speedily_closed. I don't see how deletion isn't an option--if we delete it, we just need to history merge past contributions (if there are many) to places where content was previously merged or remove the merged content. I don't see how "speedy closure" is an appropriate outcome. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect I'm aware of "merge and delete" but I don't think that deletion discussions need be held hostage to editor actions. A redirect is fine, too. Characters aren't covered in third party sources and meet WAF and NOT much better in the main article. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If you removed all the OR/unsourced statements there would be no article left anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping my vote at a "delete" despite an attempt by user: "A Nobody" asking me to change my vote Ryan4314 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• follow up comment We could move the page to a talk subpage of the target article before redirecting. It would retain the history and leave this page blank. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Moving a merged article to the Talk namespace is described at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Redirects for discussion page and specifically as an alternative to a history merge at WP:HISTMERGE#A troublesome case. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per DGG. Obviously our readers want this information and we are well positioned to present it objectively and without commercialization. Pop culture content can be treated encyclopedicly even if it takes work to do so. -- Banjeboi 14:27, 5 December 2008 (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.