Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire Emblem Archetypes

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. -

Mailer Diablo 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Fire Emblem Archetypes

Unreferenced fancruft and original research. Salad Days 03:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --- RockMFR 03:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I'm 8000% certain a similar article as AfD'd before. Axem Titanium 05:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's unreferenced, almost certainly original research, and a indisciminate collecxtion of information. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subtle original research: "They are named after the first character to possess such qualities (usually Fire Emblem 1 characters).", which pretty much indicates that those "archetypes" are something that the editor made up himself. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 08:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 08:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research. If it wasn't OR, it would still be deletable as game guide material.--Nydas^(Talk) 12:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is exactly why we need a Wikiversity game research group, or something along those lines. =) However, I'm afraid this is by definition weakly sourced. Just because it's a fact that's apparent to players of the game series is not really enough of a verification... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have heard these archtypes stated in more than a couple FAQ's and online walkthroughs referring to the Fire Emblem series in general, and while the article doesnt cite sources, it shouldent be that hard to go online and find multiple websites with lists of the same archtypes. For many people who are very familiar with the series, they use these words to describe characters in online forums- a new person to the FE series might find it very confusing. I vote to keep it Ageofe 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I doubt that FAQs written by Joe Blow count as reliable sources. Salad Days 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has come up before. Furthermore the majority of entries aren't even actual archetypes per se (for all that archetype is really the wrong term... a better one was proposed some time ago but it never caught on and I've forgotten what it was). For the unenlightened, an FE 'Archetype' is a character type which has been repeated in several games, a la Char_Aznable#Char_Clones. The best example is Kain and Abel, which are a pair of cavaliers in the first game that are red and green respectively and are friends from a long time back. In the majority of the following games, there are also pairs of green and red cavaliers the same as this, following on the tradition. This is a 'true' archetype. But somewhat recently some people have started creating 'archetypes' based on just about every FE1 character and then trying to fit characters from later games into them. Example from the article: Gato, who is basically 'a powerful character you get late in the game'. People like Athos aren't powerful characters you get late in the game because Gato was, they're powerful characters you get late in the game because characters you get that late that AREN'T powerful would be somewhat worthless. Yet this is becoming increasingly prevalent... 'Davros' (who isn't even called that) is one that I've never even heard considered before. Deleting this article won't stop it, but it will make it less 'authentic', if only a little. --Dark Twilkitri 04:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a game guide. Pascal.Tesson 09:50, 6 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.