Dracula's Castle (Castlevania: Symphony of the Night) : Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 15:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 17:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - An unnecessary WP:SPLIT that in no way has enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify a stand alone article.  The sources that aren't just listcruft/churnalism articles that are generally not considered valid for establishing notability are reviews and coverage of the game and series as a whole, which of course mention the setting as part of that coverage, but not to the extent that there is enough to support a separate article.  And, on top of the sourcing problem, this is a clear example of WP:NOPAGE , where any kind of coverage or discussion of the game's setting would make far more sense on the main article for the game rather than split out.  The castle (and its inverted counterpart) are already covered as part of the main Castlevania: Symphony of the Night article, and the reception section there even has some coverage of reviewers thoughts on the castle/inverted castle.  I suppose I would have no objection to Redirect, per WP:CHEAP , but I honestly don't see this title as a useful search term.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Should we not at least merge some of the content, if we decide that this should not have a page?  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, as I mentioned, the castle's role in the plot, the existence of the inverted castle, the development of it, and reviewers thoughts on it, are already covered on the main SotN article, so I really don't think a merge would be necessary at this point.  I suppose I have no strong objections if people feel there is something worth merging, but its leaving this as a standalone article is the possibility that I definitely do not agree with.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am honestly still not close to convinced that this subject warrants a WP:SPLIT , but as its obvious that this not going to result in anything but a Keep at this time, in no small part due to the improper rationale in the nomination, I have struck my recommendation above, to allow this to be closed early.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 21:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sorry, this was my first real deletion discussion, I still have a lot to learn, but I appreciate your patience and understanding.  Thank you!  Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 02:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Maybe you could do another more competent deletion request to show how a proper deletion request is done.  Grandmaster Huon ( talk ) 03:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The nominator admitted that it meets GNG.  A merge discussion would have been more appropriate.  Even then, I do not think it should be merged.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge is a possible outcome of AFD.  Meeting the GNG is not an auto-close scenario of an AFD.  Please discuss the merits of the nomination rather than grumbling about venue.  Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speaking of which, I guess I should have looked more closely at the page.  Merge whatever should be merged, but this should at least stay as a redirect.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Although, I would like to say that my ! vote did discuss the merits, it just was not well-researched.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 18:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Per WP:SK #1 - the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion.  The rationale for deletion was "doubt that an individual game mechanic deserves its own article", which is incorrect, as there are countless articles on Wikipedia about individual game mechanics.  It boils down to WP:WEDONTNEEDIT but without a real explanation why we don't.  The AfD gives the false impression that articles about game mechanics are banned on Wikipedia.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] P.S. For those who don't feel like checking for sources, here are the ones that prove GNG is passed: [11] [12] [13] [14] There are certainly others that one may or may not see as significant coverage, but I am confident there are enough the level can stand on its own... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep , this article passes GNG.  The nominator's rationale that "a video game mechanic doesn't deserve its own article" is inherently flawed, given we have articles such as the Water Temple and Rainbow Road on Wikipedia.  No rationale is given as to why this should be merged beyond this reasoning, and the article itself has significant reception to the point where its existence is justified.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 01:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep; the sources found by Zxcvbnm prove this locations independent notability, and a game mechanic / setting can infact justify its own article, with No Russian and Dust II being perfect examples.  This nomination I feel falls under IDONTLIKEIT, even with the admission of GNG being passed?  NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 07:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Nominator does not argue any deletion or even merge rationale, instead appears to simply express their own opinion.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 10:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Notability is not the only reason to start a deletion discussion.  But what would it be otherwise?  I guess that could fall unter WP:DEL-REASON #5, being a contentfork, but that only applies "unless a merger or redirect is appropriate".  So I think the deletion process should not be used to lead a merge discussion, even though merge is one possible outcome.  One can discuss if this is a case of WP:NOPAGE .  But I see little overlap in the current versions of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night , and we have two not-so-small stand-alone articles.  So I think they should be kept separate.  Daranios ( talk ) 10:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] After giving it more thought, I think I will go back to Keep It is a well-written article on a notable element of a video game.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 17:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Snow keep per everything said.  ★Trekker ( talk ) 18:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Let it snow keep per ZX's sources and the lack of clear rationale from the nom.  Conyo14 ( talk ) 21:31, 17 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep