Talk:Europe

Delete this page
Second verse, same as the first. Every subject in this article, from the Louvre to Venice, Paris, Germany, Austria, United Kingdom, London, and the other Mario is Missing! cities, has an article (besides Istanbul, but I'm working on fixing that, and it's a moot point when nothing about the city is covered here). The other continents, like North America and South America, have those broad articles exactly because we have information that wouldn't fit anywhere more specific. In "7 Continents for 7 Koopas", we don't know where specifically they visit in North America, South America, or the other continents, which is why we must have articles on them. Europe has no such caveat. For the same reason we don't have an article on every single country that appears in Mario is Missing!, but rather its specific cities, we shouldn't have an article on Europe.

Proposer: Deadline: February 9, 2018, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - Per proposal.
 * 3) Per this and the Asia proposal.

Oppose

 * 1) Per the other opposition. Why is this needed? This sounds unnecessarily harmful because we are talking about continents, and as we all know, continents are the largest and most important landmasses.

Comments
@Lcross: this is the Mario Wiki. We cover content that's important to Mario. What is harmful about not having this page here, especially since, as I made clear, every single piece of information in this article already exists, in more detail, on other articles? 22:47, 25 January 2018 (EST)
 * And the relevance of them being the biggest landmasses is...? I'm all for the deletion of all the continents if the relevant information is already covered in separate articles. Most of the information regarding the continents do have their own page, these just seem like unnecessary disambiguations of real-world subjects. 22:49, 25 January 2018 (EST)
 * You're dang right about that, Turner. That's exactly what we're doing with these articles---covering the Mario-related aspects of the objects. What am I missing? I don't think I'm wrong here. 23:17, 25 January 2018 (EST)
 * Have you noticed how I mentioned the huge amount of redundancy, and how that makes the article pointless and not worth keeping? 23:20, 25 January 2018 (EST)