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 Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Realm[edit]

Sacred Realm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is an in-universe repetition of the plot sections of several Legend of Zelda articles, and has no encyclopedic content to speak of due to its lack of notability. As such, it is unreferenced and entirely duplicative of the information already in the game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Hammer1980·^talk 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Hyrule... or a Universe of The Legend of Zelda series-type article might be more appropriate, but I can't see something such as this ever attaining more than a few sources, it's too obscure. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are many places where Sacred Realm is used, some of them not fiction, and they would be better served with this deleted. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, might as well, it seems every other Zelda article is being deleting. Soon we'll only have one article for LoZ, because everything else will be 'non-notable' :(. Knowitall (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stop whining, do you know how much effort it people to took to keep Link (Legend of Zelda) at Featured article status Twice? There are several non-game Zelda articles that will be featured over time, and a host of stubby ones that don't have a future, but that's not our fault. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems like everything is being deleted. Bulbasaur was a featured article. The deletionist's deleted so much from it that it's practically a stub now. It can't even get a nomination to be a "good article". I wouldn't be surprised if it lost it's article soon and got merged into a generic "list of pokemon".Knowitall (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur is a weird case; I remember when it was nominated to be featured and what a nasty fight that was, but I supported it. As to whether it is now meets notability guidelines I don't know, but I am staying away from that debate until I have an opinion. This article however, doesn't have notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, most of the info is inappraite for wikipedia, all of this seems just like a plot summary of the games, which the game page is where that goes.→041744 13:28, 29 November 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.