Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character design of Final Fantasy

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 to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series. The consensus is pretty clearly in favour of getting rid of this page again, with the favoured alternative be a restoration of the redirect. There is only one argument specifically in favour of deleting rather than redirecting, but it hasn't really convinced anyone else and it's not a very strong argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Character design of Final Fantasy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Entirely fancruft, no secondary sources, fails GNG - you know the drill. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to primarily be a giant WP:OR collection of any character-related connections between games of the series. If somehow kept, it needs to be renamed, as there’s very little in “design” or “development” content here. It’s much more of a shallow take on a “recurring themes” type article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Change back to REDIRECT and stop wasting people's time This was a redirect for years. [1] 19 May 2016 it was turned into a redirect then Zxcvbnm decides to restore it years later to send it to AFD. Why waste everyone's time with this? If the valid information was already merged over, then let it be. Dream Focus 17:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects can be restored at any time, deleted pages can't. I'm not sure how you can think they are one and the same._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not one person edited this article since [2] it was turned into a redirect over three years ago. You don't restore an article from a redirect unless you believe the article should be kept, not because you just want to delete the entire history of the article because you are concerned someone might eventually restore it. You should've just sent it to the redirect deletion discussion area. It has gotten 1,748 Pageviews in the past 90 days, so a valid redirect to exist. Dream Focus 17:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't send it to redirects for deletion because they would've told me to do exactly this, nominate it for AfD due to its past content._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No independent secondary sources to show notability. This stuff belongs on a wikia, not in Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - Its fairly obvious that this article should not be kept, but I agree with Dream Focus that I don't see why this restoration and AFD were necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no information merged over that remains in the article. So there is no reason to restore the redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and restore redirect per WP:CHEAP, WP:DEADHORSE and who knows what else. No valid rationale has been provided on why the redirect should be deleted (and no, preventing future recreation is not a valid reason when the edit history shows no attempts of such happening). I'm not one to assume bad faith, but I do consider it to be lying through omission how the nominator failed to acknowledge in his statement tgat the article has been a redirect for three years, until he himself recreated it and nominated it for deletion(!?). This isn't what AfD is for, and it feels like WP:GAMING to me. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 00:38, 31 July 2019 (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.