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 due to lack of references. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songs from The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No notability outside the games themselves. Miremare 03:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Keep, rename to Music in The Legend of Zelda and rewrite per Disavian. Amazon lists quite a few soundtrack (which I had been completely unaware of previously), but this article should then be centered around the (real-world) soundtracks, not mainly in-universe elements and plot. – sgeureka t•c 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically there are not references, so there is no verifiability, and to keep this article from being deleted, it needs development information and stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing this out, but it won't change my recommendation. I just found Music of Kingdom Hearts (a Good Article) yesterday, and I think the soundtracks and what's salvageable of this AfD'ed article should all be merged into one big Music article, which has the potential to become a GA one day. – sgeureka t•c 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Music of Kingdom Hearts has more than proven notability, this article has proven none, despite claims that it is so important. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recommended a renaming of this article and merge the other soundtrack articles there. Then the article has pretty much the same basis as the Kingdom Hearts music article, including an established notability. Independent of the outcome of this AfD, I'll probably do the merge myself. – sgeureka t•c 09:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus can change, so stop ignoring that fact. Being kept in one AFD, doesn't mean it should always be kept. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already done when it was first nominated (A better version was transwikied) see here --Cs california 07:37, 2 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.