Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiple Links Theory

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Merge with The Legend of Zelda series. Death phoenix 17:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Links Theory

(from "zelda" series) Apparently original research (13 google points), non-factual fancruft, maybe vanity Brighterorange 13:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The Multiple Links theory isn't necessarily original research, you'll find various flavours of it plastered all over whatever forum you choose. However this is, as the title says, a "theory", it isn't facts. Even Shigeru Miyamoto says he's not sure about some parts of the timeline. ~~So it must be deleted, as there's no way to make it accurate or reliable or "true". Master Thief Garrett^Talk 14:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)~~ Weak Keep, pending Deco's rewrite. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it is true that there is definitely more than one Link, there is no need for such information to appear outside of the Link and Zelda series articles, especially not in this form. Also, some of the 'which Links appeared in which games' accertations made are not definite. Ian Moody 15:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply a theory. Delete. Nestea 15:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear verifiable. At best the info should be featured on a more centralized article. ESkog 16:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rewrite~~. The most reputable of fansites have long sought to reconcile the chronological problems of the Zelda series using some kind of multiple Links theory. What's more, the existence of multiple Links is not only obvious but verbatim confirmed by Miyamoto and others. However, this article is trying to push one particular theory that doesn't hold too much sway, and is also very poorly written. What we need is a good summary of all of the traditional theories and how the official information fits in. I'll do this later if I have time before its demise. Deco 00:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But how many theories are you going to have to cover? There's been so many... and where exactly Link's adventures in the "not in Hyrule" games come in exactly is always unclear... this article would probably end up being rather long... hmmm... but I'll vote to keep for now, see how well (or badly) this comes out... hmmm... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've thought about this some more and read some of the latest theories and stuff. I think a better move may be to add a section to the The Legend of Zelda series article about the chronology of Zelda in general, mentioning the multiple Links theory. If this section grows large enough, it can be moved to Chronology of the The Legend of Zelda series or something. I changed my vote to Merge/redirect. Deco 19:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable theory. Megan1967 06:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a theory, that's a fact from the games' timeline (there are also multiple princesses each named Zelda, given that the games are set in different periods of history). Merge/redir to Legend of Zelda for a very brief mention. R adiant _* 11:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
Merge into The Legend of Zelda series. Thunderbrand 15:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.