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. W.marsh 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Delete OK I've been looking further into the guidelines, policies and various other bits connected to video games.

The Video Games Wiki (yes I know it's not policy but seems to the "considered" viewpoint on what should and should not be done with video game articles) has the following to say: A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. I'd say this article fails that test, I do not see how content such as: Light Arrows are also featured in The Minish Cap as an arrow upgrade. They are the first item ever that can be missed. If Link doesn't save Gregal before officially visiting the Wind Tribe, Gregal dies and Link will not get the Light Arrows ever. is of much interest to someone who is not playing that game.

It also says that other content that might be moved to a gaming wiki includes: Lists of mere statistics, items, or other minutiae. The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the swords available in the game. I'd say this article seems to fail one as well: Bottles are an essential part to many of Link's quests. These containers are used and often required to carry various things, such as: <list of all the bottles that link encountered Larry laptop 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added this six days ago, I also raised it here on the talkpage with no effect, and it was also mentioned here . For anyone about to suggest MERGE I would suggest they read this --Larry laptop 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly against WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list and not a game guide. This article is literally a game guide covering the entire Legend of Zelda series and is unhelpful to anyone who hasn't played the games. The article also lacks sources as per WP:V and is probably original research. --Scottie theNerd 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting on my own stance: in light of points made in this debate, I actually do think that it is possible to cleanup and/or rewrite the article in such a way that it would not appear to be a game guide/indiscriminate list, hence negating the proposed reason for deletion. I too think that the subject is worthy of its article, though it seriously needs credible sources to back up such a claim. --Scottie theNerd 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unnecessary. (also per WP:NOT and WP:V) Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: This article is informing about parts of one of the biggest game-series ever, and has been created because the article of the series itself was already too big. The fact it's only of interest to gamers is bullocks. Are we going to delete the article about the Pope, because Muslims and non-catholics don't find it interesting?

• Comment" This article is not written as a game guide. It does not explain the location or anything how to get it. It (generally) explains the items in the most encyclopedic way possible. JackSparrow Ninja 01:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You consider this encyclopedic (this is random, I could pick 100s of other examples) - The Mirror Shield is also required in order to solve several puzzles in The Wind Waker. In The Minish Cap, whenever an enemy fired a projectile and you block it with the Mirror Shield, the shield emits a small damaging beam of light (roughly equivalent to half the power of the Four Sword) back to the enemy. Interestingly, this is the first time an item cannot be obtained on the first playthrough. Only when the is finished can the Mirror Shield be obtained. Therefore, it's rather useless in The Minish Cap. It is formed by Biggoron eating the normal shield and spitting it out a few days later. Really?

how about Ooccoo is a being who acts like a warp item in Twilight Princess, much like Farore's Wind in Ocarina of Time. She will let you set a warp point in a dungeon by staying there and having her son, Ooccoo Jr., warp you outside and, if used again, back to the original warp point inside the dungeon. Unlike other warp items, she must be found again in each dungeon. She also doesn't appear in the final two dungeons or return with Link to already completed dungeons for storyline reasons.

and clear this is not a games guide In The Wind Waker, Link can buy All-Purpose Bait at Beedle's Shop Ship and store it in his Bait Bag. It is purchased in groups of three servings. A purchasable group of this bait will occupy one pouch in the Bait Bag, regardless of how many servings are left. Throwing some bait on the ground can cause pigs to dig there; throwing it near a rat hole causes rats to offer various helpful items for purchase. It can also distract Miniblins, and if thrown onto the sea near Fishman, he can fill in Link's Sea Chart and offer advice about the area. and I've seen some wonky "what about article X" views but you think that compares to an article on one of the world's major religious leaders? really? --Larry laptop 01:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just because it is interesting and useful does not mean it is encyclopedic according to Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:ILIKEIT. --Scottie theNerd 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Given that I'm packing at the moment I don't have time to go into my usual depth of argument. However, let me summarize as such: WP:FICT specifically allows for the creation of list articles when the sheer volume of content is enough to outright disrupt the article. This is one such case. This article may go into somewhat excessive detail in a few places, but by and large it is perfectly justified. At most this calls for a cleanup. Additionally, once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW - yeah I already know the special interest group will flood the afd and force no-concensus but one has to try. But don't worry if you are stuck with of the deku stick, it can be swung by using the assigned "C" button. They inflict double the damage to that of the Kokiri Sword, and double still when set ablaze, making them the most powerful weapon available to Young Link. --Larry laptop 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is obvious that there is no way you might be wrong with this afd, and any keep means it's just by Link fanboys. JackSparrow Ninja 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is obviously not perfect, but as I said, that merely warrants cleanup. All of your concerns can be addressed without deleting the article. Additionally, both you and JackSparrow's comments fail WP:SARCASM. :P -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article is not supposed to be a game guide, and is in line with the proper list of items style in most of its locations. It contains some game guide content, but that can be removed. --tjstrf talk 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether or not the content of the article is a game guide, the subject itself is notable enough (and verifiable enough) to have an article. --- RockMFR 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This isn't a game guide. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is game guide material and is not encyclopedic. This kind of information is more appropriate for a website such as gamefaqs.com. Furthermore, much of the article appears to suffer from original research and the article provides absolutely no real-world context. This information is of absolutely no use outside of playing the game; when is someone going to need to look up this sort of information other than when they are playing? Those who argue that it should be kept because it is too long for the main article on the game are missing the point that this sort of information shouldn't be in an encyclopedia at all. --The Way 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Yukichigai. The Legend of Zelda series is huge and this is a logical subarticle. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability asserted, yes, the game itself is notable, but what, specifically, is notable about a specific sword in the game? I consider items and such within games kinda like celebrities' wives, they may warrant a mention in the main article, but they hardly ever warrant seperate articles. There is no encyclopedic reason for a list of items within games, there are game wikis and gamefaqs for that reason. In addition, the definition of "game guide" per WP:NOT suggests that anytime something is useful primarily only to someone actually playing the game, it's not encyclopedic. In all honesty speedy delete criterion for "no context" and "no notability asserted" may well apply to the numerous lists of this kind, descriptions of game items offer us no commentary or context to ascertain why they are important. Wintermut3 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Wikipedia is not a game guide. Otto4711 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To anyone claiming this page is a game guide: go read the article game guide. Game guides are strategy guides: collections of tips, plans, and statistics to be used for defeating your enemies, not this. While this may be an article designed to explain a game, that is not the same as being a game guide. --tjstrf talk 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intention of the article may not be a game guide, but parts of it (such as the sections quoted above) clearly are. As the article stands, I would consider it more a guide than an informative article on items in a popular video game series. --Scottie theNerd 06:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable per WP:FICT, game guide elements can be cleaned up. Resolute 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's argued that it isn't notable. --Scottie theNerd 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per tjstrf. AFD isn't for pointing out that an article needs cleanup. Yzak Jule 07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The only time WP:NOT mentions games guides is under the Instruction manuals section. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This is none of those things. It would only violate policy if it included a guide on how to get these items, suggestions on how/where to use them, or advice on how to use them. An article about these items does not violate policy.VegaDark 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm as much a Link boy as the next guy that never in his life owned a Nintendo, but I think that the article in itself should stay, since there is clearly enough material to warrant an article, on a subject that seems reasonably notable. Surely, a thorough clean-up could solve the game-guide issue. It just seems like a such a waste to delete what is clearly hours of well-intended work. The article desperately needs a clean-up, sure enough, to remove game-guide content as well as to make it less sprawling, but deleting seems unjustified. Just my two-pence. Druworos 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep So what if it's a bit of a game guide, I like it a lot. I've found it very useful when playing as I don't have to search all over the net to find a decent guide. I think the article actually needs expanding. oh and a big up to the person who linked this AFD. --ICRArmy 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classic case of WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it and find it useful doesn't necessarily means it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's just a long and unwieldy list of pointless trivia. P Ingerson (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The game is notable... but the individual weapons and items used in the game are not. Trivia.Blueboar 17:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Verifiable, notable, and is not a game guide, so WP:NOT does not apply. --Falcorian ^(talk) 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but tag for cleanup. Some of the quotes here are indeed a bit too much detail/trivia oriented (and should be removed), but given the importance of this game (and its focus on item/weapon collection) the subject is clearly notable. User:VegaDark is exactly right about WP:NOT a game guide; it does not exclude articles about games or their contents, it only excludes how-to material. The material is certainly verifiable; descriptive claims can be sourced to the primary sources and multiple independent published guides for these games exist. (And though WP:NOT a game guide, they can of course be used as references.) — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: to me, what makes this a more like a game guide than an encyclopedia article is that it's entirely written from an in-game-universe perspective. Are sources talking about the real-world impact of these objects? That's what an encyclopedia article would contain. What we have here belongs in a game wiki, not an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what an in-universe perspective has to do with being a guide. WP:NOT clearly excludes game guides because they are instuctional, how-to material. Most of this article is not (and what's there should be removed). Compare List of Shakespearean characters for another mammoth list of in-universe descriptions of elements of notable fiction. I'd certainly vote to keep that article as well. — brighterorange (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In universe description is a nono based on the writing about fiction guidelines not just the wp:not a game guide criteria. Basically, an article must provide context in addition to content in order to fulfill the encyclopedic requirement. Things written from an entirely in-univese perspective about fiction also tend to result in confusion when they don't assert the character is fictional or why they're important in a more general sense. For example writing that a character is "the captain of the 124th lancer division of the galactic empire" could result in confusion, whereas "In sci/fi story Admiral soandso is the leader of the 124th lancer division, the protagonist's unit..." makes it explicitly clear the universe and importance to the story of the character. Wintermut3 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, of course, and the article does in fact do that. (Actually, looking over the list it seems that much of it is not in-universe at all.) Being in-universe is not grounds for deletion, anyway, since that can easily be corrected. What I don't understand is User:Friday's supposed alleged link between in universe and game guide. — brighterorange (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be fixed- that's my point. If proper sources are not talking about the real-world impact of these fictional objects, there's no encyclopedia article that can cover these subjects. If it were just a matter of writing style, this would surely be a candidate to be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. Friday (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems fairly useful. CosmicWaffles 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, please read WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it or find it useful does not necessarily mean it should be on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CosmicWaffles has his own reason for keep, regardless of WP:ILIKEIT. --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ILIKEIT explains exactly why the "to each his own" principle is not appropriate for deletion debates. Saying "I like it" contributes nothing to the discussion; this is not a ballot. --Scottie theNerd 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, you got a point there. Disregard the above, I apologize in advance. --♥Tohru Honda13♥^Talk 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologise. I don't know much about Wikipedia, I'm a newbie, and I'm female. Sorry! CosmicWaffles 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep verifiable, notable. All this article needs is cleanup, and this reads nothing at all like a game guide. And I'm gonna be a bit of a rebel (jokingly) and say It's useful(I'm just playing!). --Tohru Honda13^{Talk•Sign here} 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If any videogame series deserves an article like this, it's Legend of Zelda. -Toptomcat 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough. Killroy4 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - in response to the MOS point - when the "sheer volume of content is enough to outright disrupt the article" why can't such content just be prunned off wikipedia? Especially when it's cruft, and not notable. Notable game series, yes. But is each item in the Zelda series really notable enough that we have an entry (and in many cases, a picture) in the encyclopedia? I see no point in keeping the article in its current state. It would need a massive cleanup before i would see it as not violating WP:NOT. We don't *need* a list of all weapons and items from Zelda, whether that's an independant list or a list that's part of another article. --`/aksha 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - your WP:NOT also states that

"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." JackSparrow Ninja 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The problem is that you are applying notability standards for determining the inclusion of articles to the process of determining the inclusion of sections of articles. Furthermore, as to not "needing" a list of Zelda weapons: technically, Wikipedia doesn't *need* to exist either. This is not an exercise in minimalism, it's an exercise in consensus information gathering. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per solid precedent for such in-game item lists:
  • List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved
  • List of weapons in Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2
  • List of vehicles in the Halo universe at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe
  • List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series
  • List of vehicles in Star Wars: Battlefront II at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Star Wars: Battlefront II
  • List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series
  • List of cars in Burnout Legends at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars in Burnout Legends
  • List of Cars in Forza Motorsport at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cars in Forza Motorsport
  • List of F.E.A.R. weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F.E.A.R. weapons
  • Equipment in the Guild Wars Universe at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles
  • Mega Man weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man weapons
  • List of weapons in Battlefield 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Battlefield 2
  • Battlefield 1942 Weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry
  • And many others that I didn't find with 5 minutes of searching. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Each one of those articles which you have listed detailed a specific subset of items (e.g. weapons, cars, etc.) from a single game. (Or was redundant information already listed elsewhere) This article, however, details all items and weapons from an entire series of games. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Guild Wars equipment list doesn't fall into the same category you pointed out. Having a broader list doesn't necessarily make it more appropriate, and in fact it can be worse for the article's existence. --Scottie theNerd 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Rubbish. Are you telling me that there has been only one Mega Man game? What does "series" in "Grand Theft Auto series" mean? How many games inhabit the "Halo universe"? Most importantly, so what? The bulk of an article that indiscriminately lists every widget in an ever growing series of games should hardly be its raison d'être. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - The Mega Man info was redundant. All the rest were articles with remarkably narrow focus, e.g about a specific subtype of items, usually in one specific game. The point is that each of these articles boiled down to a needless sub-article about a trivial portion of (in almost all cases) one game. (Though I do take some exception to the deletion of the Mega Man article) This article is not so narrow or trivial in its focus, and using the "precedent" of the previous AfDs simply does not apply, even ignoring the fact that not every AfD result is the right one. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precedents are not formed by the presence of articles, but rather by consensus in community-wide discussions such as the policy/guideline pages, AfD (cf.) etc. Individual AfDs don't exist in a vacuum; if over dozens of AfDs the community has decided that such lists are not suitable for Wikipedia, then we must see extraordinary arguments for why this particular article is special. The mere fact of covering a series such as Zelda is not such an exceptional argument. Some more AfDs to munch on:
            • Armoured units of the USA (game), Aerial units of the USA (game), Naval units of the USA (game), Infantry units of China (game), Armoured units of China (C&C: Generals), Infantry units of the GLA (game), Armoured units of the GLA (game), Red Alert 2 Infantry, C&C Red Alert Vehicles, and C&C Red Alert Infantry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG)
            • Units in Advance Wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Advance Wars
            • Units in Nintendo Wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Nintendo Wars
            • Duke Nukem 3D monsters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem 3D monsters
            • Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry, Soviet Union (C&C: Red Alert), Allies (C&C: Red Alert), Command & Conquer Red Alert Vehicles, C&C Red Alert Aircraft, Command & Conquer Red Alert Naval Units, Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative, Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative, Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative, Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Structures of the Global Defense Initiative, and Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry
            • Age of Empires units and structures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires units and structures
            • StarCraft units and structures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft units and structures (now just a redirect)
            • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zergling (a most illuminating AfD)
            • Weapons of Eve Online at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Eve Online
              — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment - I could be a chode here and cherry-pick AfDs to counter your claims, but I'd rather give everyone an opportunity to view the entire picture, as it were, on AfDs relating to lists like this one. Here is a list of every Computer and Video Game related AfD in the past several months. It's a lot of data to digest, but then again so are all the AfDs you seem to have arbitrarily picked. The one thing that is clear in this list, however, is that the "consensus in community-wide discussions" you talked about doesn't exist. I've not kept clear count, but it seems to be a roughly 60-40 split on the delete/keep results for "list" CVG articles. Even if you ignore the other CVG-related "list" articles that have never been nominated for AfD you cannot possibly shape a 60-40 margin into a "clear consensus". Trying to justify the deletion of this article because some other, somewhat similar articles were deleted is lazy at best, and just doesn't fly in an AfD discussion. Just like inclusion is not an indicator of notability, neither is exclusion. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Far from being "somewhat similar" and "arbitrary", the above is an essentially comprehensive list of AfDs in the past year dealing with exactly the same thing: lists of widgets and doohdahs from video games with no notability outside the community that plays the game. Any random chump can "include" an article in WP, which is why WP:INN exists. It requires consensus and at least one concurring admin to delete an article, which is why ignoring precedent on AfD is silly. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • This is not a "comprehensive list", it's a cherry-picked collection. As for WP:INN, read my above comment: just like inclusion is not an indicator of notability, lack of inclusion is not an indicator of non-notability. If we start relying on "precedent" then the entire AfD process becomes moot; there will be no discussion, just people citing previous AfDs. Articles for Deletion discussions are to be done based on the individual merits of each article, not on what has come before. Citing a handpicked collection of previous AfDs as "precedent" is tangential, misleading, and just plain wrong. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your statement above amounts to little more than stewing a word soup out of negative adjectives. Scream "cherrypicking" all you like: the facts are clear. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment - Yup, the facts are clear: there's no "general" consensus for deleting CVG list articles. Some stay, some go. Each is evaluated on the merits of the article, not "precedent". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Comment - See also WP:AADD#What about article x?. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some more:
            • Buildings of Age of Empires III at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildings of Age of Empires III
            • Cards in Sonic Rivals at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cards in Sonic Rivals
            • Counter-Strike equipment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike equipment
            • List of Gears of War weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gears of War weapons (now just a redirect)
            • List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks
            • List of vehicles in Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Halo 2 (2nd nomination)
            • List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142
            • List of Weapons in Alien Breed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in Alien Breed
            • List of weapons in Perfect Dark at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Perfect Dark (now just a redirect)
            • List of Weapons in Metal Gear Acid 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in Metal Gear Acid 2
            • List of weapons in Naruto at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Naruto
            • Mega Man vehicles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man vehicles
            • Red Alert 2 Tech Buildings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Alert 2 Tech Buildings
            • RuneScape items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape items (yes, it is possible to delete runecruft)
            • Weapons of Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Halo 2 (now just a redirect)
            • Weapons in Call of Duty 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons in Call of Duty 2 (merged with Call of Duty 2)
          • The only AfDs that break the pattern that I have found:
            • Items in the Metroid series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items in the Metroid series (was kept)
            • The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask masks, weapons and items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask masks, weapons and items (no consensus, but obviously a clear overlap with the currently nominated article)
            • RuneScape weaponry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape weaponry (third nomination) (no consensus, but we all know how difficult purging runecruft is)
          • I hope the closing admin will comment on the applicability or not of relevant past AfDs in setting a citable precedent. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but ensure that it only addresses well-known and recognized weapons and items from the LoZ series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minutia from the game. I'm sure a summary within the main article would do the trick. This is far too extensive for a general encyclopaedia. More information is not always better; sometimes it is best to condense a lot of information to its crux and not go into such great detail. Plus, it caused a discussion where I saw video game trivia equated with the Pope, which I found offensive not to my religious values (as the Pope isn't part of my religion), but to my sense of... reality. GassyGuy 08:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MAJOR COMMENT The article under discussion has been trimmed to about a tenth its previous size, and no longer covers any items that could possibly be considered minutia. It's basically not the same article anymore, so everyone should reconsider their positions in light of this fact. --tjstrf talk 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks more appropriate, but it still resembles a comprehensive list of trivial information that belongs on a game wiki rather than Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now it's a non-comprehensive list of non-trivial information and is still just as useless of a game guide as ever. --tjstrf talk 08:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Lord, I didn't realize the version I read was after a major overhaul. The version when the AfD tag was applied is downright scary. Still, while Zelda is notable, weapons of Zelda don't get much in the line of reliable third party coverage and the likes, and the article as it stands still strikes me as mainly trivial. It's much better than it was, but it seems like there ought to be a way to condense it far more. GassyGuy 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given the recuring nature of a significant number weapons, and their importance to the evoltion of the series, I'd say it is notable. That's not to say the article couldn't use work though. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nobody brought up the Pokemon yet? Because I'd argue that Pokemon and Zelda's items are damn near the same thing. At least nobody's listed Zelda items as individual entries yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.220 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. As it stands currently, the article is not (just) a game guide and is an aggregation entries on items from a notable fictional series much as invisioned by WP:FICT. More clean-up may be desirable but I think that this is a logical and encyclopedic sub-article of Legend of Zelda series that should not be deleted. Eluchil404 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Take this type of article to a video game Wiki. RobJ1981 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP It's fine. You people, (specifically the guy who posted direct links to a bunch of other articles like they form a legal precedent) have far to much time on your hands. The page shows the items involved in the series, as well as how they progress from title to title. It needs to be cleaned up, that's about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.53.167 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-26T09:10:42 (UTC)
  • — 66.215.53.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep or at worst relist the AFD. I can see why contributors were up in arms about the previous version, it had eschewed all traces of wanting to be an encyclopedia article and was running wild. However, unlike most (if not all) of the examples given of weapon-pages deleted, LoZ isn't a single game which happens to feature weapons or items, it's one of the longest running still-active game series. Since a great deal of the weapons feature in different games of the series, a page about them seems perfectly reasonable. Master Sword has a seperate article, could it not be merged in? If the article is kept, it certainly needs continued cleanup and referencing, but I think this does justify a stay of execution.
  As a side-issue, since RuneScape was mentioned, can I point out that the contributors to RuneScape themselves voted for deletion or merge of many of the articles they themselves worked on. Despite of a lack of familiarity with the policies and guidelines and having to cope with one of the most heavily editted articles on WP with an army of anons who've never editted before bombarding it constantly, the RS contributors are well on the way to getting the article to GA status and have tried to reign-in the sub-articles. Credit where it's due please, 'RuneCruft' is getting old. QuagmireDog 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if you were offended by that. I do honestly wish the RuneScape editors the best of luck with cleaning those articles up, even though I remain pessimistic about their chances and the state of video game articles in general. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good of you to respond, I really appreciate that. Rather thank taking offense, it's worry more than anything that any RS article which may get listed for AFD immediately conjures the thought "It's those bloody RS fanatics again!", especially when so many rogue articles appear from new contributors being bold, but which weren't wanted by those trying to build the RS series within the policies. I'll do my bit to try and keep gaming articles up to scratch and encourage others to do the same. :) QuagmireDog 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless you can prove nobody would be interested in this.--Nelson Ricardo 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we don't have to prove no one would be interested, all we have to prove is that this information is not of encyclopaedic merit. There are many useful things or things people are interested in that we cannot cover (per WP:Not a howto guide, a directory, ect.) In fact WP:Not is entirely about things that, while useful/interesting/important do not belong on Wikipedia. The trimmed article is better, but I still think it asserts no significance. why is that sword *Important* is the key question here, and why is it important beyond the context of the game itself? This is still material primarily of interest only to people actually playing the game. Wintermut3 16:43, 27 January 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.