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.  Sandstein  17:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Xenosaga[edit]

List of minor characters in Xenosaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article does not meet the WP:GNG because there are no reliable third party sources to verify the article's contents. Non-notable list of video game characters. Previous AFD does not reflect actual policy, and was closed by a non-admin with 2 delete !votes and 3 keeps. Randomran (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — before I pass judgment, I'd like to say that the first AfD was improperly closed (non-admin) as a keep. When there is no clear consensus (there was 4 keeps and 1 delete) the discussion should not be non-admin closed; instead, let it run its course and let admin decide, even if they decide to keep. Not doing that leaves the door wide open for DRVs and/or subsequent AfD nominations. MuZemike (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikia and then delete — no verifiable secondary sources in the article establishing notability (fiction) of anybody. MuZemike (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I agree with MuZemike. Reyk _YO! 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Legitmate spinoff page to keep the main article from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 'minor' clinches it for me - if it was just a list of characters, I'd be inclined to keep, but because it lists minor characters... they're minor for a reason, you know! Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but if it could be moved (and it can) to, say, List of characters in Xenosaga (sans the word "minor"), would you change to "keep?" (in which I would still argue verifiability, etc.) MuZemike (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but that would be manifestly gaming the rules. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep due to clear consensus in previous discussion and per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roi, we have a guideline for speedy keep and I don't see how this situation falls under any of these criteria.--chaser - t 18:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The decisive consensus in the previous discussion suggests that a renomination seems unwarranted. As it closed as a clear keep, efforts should instead be focused on improving the article in question. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insignificant coverage in sources which are independent and neither in-universe nor game guides. Consensus can change, and has, from the previous AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage is significant enough for Wikipedia. The consensus has not changed, just because a few want to delete here does not change the reality that a much larger of editors and readers who worked on and come here for this content believe it should be kept. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This silent majority of yours really must be pretty silent, what with them repeatedly failing to express their opinions in any appropriate venue which might result in our guidelines being changed. Furthermore, it is illogical to argue that an inappropriately early close after five comments on the previous AfD was "clear consensus", while increased participation here is apparently an insignificant minority. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They're too busy writing articles. If you think only five comments in AfD is not sufficient consensus to keep, then all those AfDs with five comments for deletion apparently do not reflect consensus either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say that. What I said was that it was illogical to declare "clear consensus" based on three "keep" comments but to declare this discussion as non-representative. I'm happy that the first AfD showed consensus, if prematurely; I think consensus has now changed, what with some of the project having gotten serious about application of WP:N. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The thing is that this article is being called into question based on being "game guide", but as the article indicates, these characters do not solely appear in games, but also in manga and anime. Of the millions of video game characters, only so many have also appeared in other works if fiction. That is where I see the notability here, i.e. that despite being called "minor" in the article's title, they are not strictly video game characters. So, my thought is that we can use the numerous published game guides linked to above to serve as reliable primary sources, but also reviews of not just the games but also of the anime and manga for secondary source coverage. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, consensus was once clear on this article. It was the product of a now-obsolete compromise, since found unworkable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cites no sources and the lead should give a clue as to the likely notability of the subject. there is some value in list articles as they both limit extraneous article creation and may (with notable elements) help readers navigate a subject. However, I feel that need is being solved by the "major" characters list. In this case, this list is a magnet for original research, cruft and functionally unverifiable claims (without playing a game all the way through). I like AMiB's "walled garden" analogy. The series generates (just like a lot of modern game fiction) a staggering amount of detail, very little of it notable in a real-world sense. There is no need for an encyclopedia, even one as inclusive as wikipedia, to include all or even most of the parochial material generated by the game manufacturers. Also, the article cites no independent sources (or any) in order to assert notability per the WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  "Walled garden" is a term from the meatball wiki. A copy of the original; not sure where the original was. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I have expanded the lead to demonstrate that that this obviously specialized encyclopedic article does indeed meet our notability guidelines. Also, the artucle could easily be merged with an article on Xenosaga characters, as doing searches of individual characters reveals that secondary source articles have in fact covered various characters in semi-list fashion in such articles as this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An artifact of the old WP:FANCRUFT guideline, which advised handling major characters in the main article, and minor characters in a spinoff article (as had been done with an Atlas Shrugged compromise at the time). We don't do this any more; current practice is to cover the characters in the main article, and just omit excessive plot detail. The broader consensus changed.
  Now, we have a dumping ground for the characters who didn't merit mention in the (already huge) major characters list. These are characters with minor roles, often completely omitted for lack of importance from the main plot summaries. We don't need many, many articles all recapping different details of the Xenosaga series' plot, that's just excessive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Despite the positive statement above, no way has ever really achieved permanent consensus--the nearest and in my opinion the best was to giving major characters individual articles, and treating the minor ones in a combination article. Experience has shown that condensing this all into the main article, usually results in condensing the material to a useless extent, at which point people try to omit it entirely. Actually for any complex fiction presenting the story in terms of the individual characters is usually a clearer way than by going step by step through the plot, and character articles consequently should be encouraged as a complementary method, more useful to those unfamiliar with the fiction. There will be some duplication with the main article, which, in proper summary style, will contain a brief summary. How important this particular fiction is, and what depth of coverage is consequently appropriate for the characters, I leave to the talk pages.16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

  But we have articles for the characters important enough to mention. Multiple articles. This is the leftovers, characters so minor that they really aren't worth mentioning anywhere more relevant. You're saying, "Well, we'll leave it to the talk pages to decide which characters are important enough to mention," but that discussion has already been had: all of the characters important enough to mention are mentioned in other articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously others believe that these characters are also important enough to mention. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, given that we already have individual articles for most of the PCs, as well as, not one, but two other lists of characters. The information here is too fragmented and granular to comfortably fit anywhere else, and so the resulting list is, as described by AMiB, a dumping ground. Nifboy (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to second Father Goose from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catsuits and bodysuits in popular media. Some of these character AfDs I can actually sort of see where editors are coming frome; however, let us be serious here. A previous discussion closed as "keep," not "no consensus." And despite that the article title says "minor", these characters appeared not just in video games, but manga and anime. They are also covered in reviews (secondary sources) and published strategy guides (reliable primary sources). Thus, they are notable and verifiable by any common sense standard. Obviously editors and readers believe the article suitable for our project and are willing to continue improving it. I would be far more willing to accept the deletion rationales for article slike Marneus Calgar, where the characters does not appear in games, manga, and anime, and can be found on Google books or Google news searches if valid lists of characters that do appear in mutiple mainstream works of fiction and for which can clearly be verified were not also nominated. It is time we come to our senses and actually compromise on these things. Something like this articles unequivocally is within our legitimate scope of coverage, even if merged and redirected elsewhere. If we can agree on that, then I can agree to concede on ones like the aforementioned Marneus. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a tit-for-tat process. An element of trade might be appropriate in the spirit of cooperative editing had you any particular interest in the subject beyond increasing your keep tally, but there's no evidence of that. Furthermore, given your record it is likely that you would use any keep as precedent for future AfDs regardless of how the article were kept. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This particular nomination and rationales for deletion are more appropriate for April Fools Day; given your record, it is likely that you would use any delete as precedent for future AfDs regardless of how the articles were deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I said. This was kept with a keep consensus because it was the result of a now-obsolete compromise. Editing practices have since changed in the intervening year. Also, knock this "Copy-paste what you say but reversing the names" nonsense right off, it's not clever or germane. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not convinced that characters who appear in games, manga, and anime are not somehow worthy enough for a merge and redirect or something as I am just not seeing a persuasively urgent need to redlink this article altogether. Also, knock this editing other people's posts nonsense off. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay? You've said that about five times now. You just repeated yourself, both with your first comment and with this comment, not having addressed anything anyone's really said. The entirety of your argument seems to be "Well, I don't really like current editing practices, and I'm sure lots of people agree with me and aren't speaking up!"

  Do not add gigantic inline images to AFDs. You've been warned, multiple times, about disrupting AFDs in various ways. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As have you and as usual you are once again disrupting an AfD I participate in. Please approach these discussions maturely. If you do not want to discuss with me in a serious fashion, then why bother? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You're accusing me of disrupting AFD by removing a giant trout, then still not addressing "Editing practices have changed" and "Nobody wants this merged because it was the content so useless it was DEmerged" and "There's nothing save very specific plot summary one can say about these characters." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I am accusing you because your accusation against me is ridiculous given as far as I can tell you did not revert and warn someone else who did it in another discussion we both participated in. The double standard is what I find disruptive. I would not have added such an image if someone else had not done so, not be harangued for doing so, and the discussion ended up not closing as delete. For it to all of a sudden be the wrong approach when I do it is what baffles me. For once I thought maybe I will attempt what worked for someone else instead and yet again, I get more assumptions of bad faith. Maybe nobody wants it merged, but editors who created and worked on the article obviously want it kept. What is effective and relevant from this article is that it covers characters who appeared in mutiple forms of fiction. The individual entries on this list note how the characters appeared in these different works of fiction and provides out of universe comments about who voiced them for example. Rather than expecting readers to surf through all the articles on the specific works of fiction that these characters appeared in, it is all presented in a coherent and organized fashion right in this list. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And we need an entire article devoted to characters so minor they don't merit mention in the plot summaries of those works because? Nevermind that there's nothing referenced to say about them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The referencing concern I strongly believe to be fixable. One can argue we do not "need" any given article, but as I outlined above, I do see a few purposes that this article serves for our readers. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clear up the confusion, because you're arguing about a TROUT for chrissakes, I originally removed it because I was under the impression it was aimed in my direction, and I am not in Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping. Nifboy (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it was aimed at the nomination and arguments to delete in general, which is why it wasn't made as a reply to any specific editor. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The proper use of a wet trout is in response to especially egregious lapses in judgment, not things which you yourself have said you "can actually sort of see where editors are coming frome" [sic]. Nifboy (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This AfD is one that I believe to be an especially egregious lapse in judgment. Some of the Warhammer ones are those that I said I can actually sort of see where editors are coming from. I do not see any valid reasons to redlink here, however, and actually see value in the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't stop you from appearing uncivil to those who disagree with your assessment, including the troutees. Nifboy (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I find trying to delete an article that was already closed as keep discourteous if not less than civil to those who argued the first time around and who have worked on it since. I also find going on and on about the fish unproductive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Please assume good faith. We delete articles that are unsourceable all the time, and indeed it is a part of our guidelines at WP:AFD and WP:NOTABILITY. An article that survives an AFD can still be nominated for deletion if the policies or guidelines have not been met. It is not incivil, discourteous, or disruptive. On the other hand, please don't misuse speedy keep when the situation does not meet that guideline. Please familiarize yourself with that guideline for future reference. Randomran (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Since these characters have appeared in a variety of different media it is reasonable to keep them. Moreover, the previous AfD was a clear keep (whether or not it should have been a non-admin close, the consensus in that AfD is clear). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of them don't appear in a variety of different media. About half of this article is background or secondary characters in side-story works, and the rest are characters with no dialogue (animals, historical people from the backstory) or from flashbacks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry, but this list doesn't help at all to understand or state the notability of Xenosaga, and contains nothing notable. It's just a lot of non-notable plot summary and very very minor characters. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:JNN aside, it expands on our understanding and notability of Xenosaga by indicating the wealth of characters that have appeared in mutiple games, anime, and mange. It is also out of universe information on who voiced the characters. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even with reference to existing policy about how Wiki is not paper etc, this article does not prove the notability of its subjects. doktorb _words^deeds 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does in that they appear in multiple different kinds of works of fiction, which only a handful of the millions of fictional characters do. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I point you to the following lines in the opening part of the article - "nor does it feature playable characters. Nevertheless, a number of these characters also appear in anime and manga". So the article name says "minor characters", and the article copy says the characters are non-playable, whilst "a number" also appear in other means. Now I take from all this, that minor=non-notable, non-playable means the characters have no notable role within the game, and "a number" can mean anything from 1 to 100, it's all but meaningless. doktorb _words^deeds 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • The number that appear in other medeia are notable and verifiable. So long as editors are working on the article, readers come here for it, and the article is not outright nonsense, then there is no real reason why a paperless encyclopedia should not cover it. Notability is nothing more than "I like it" or "I don't like it," i.e. it is subjective and as such a whole category of editors oppose using it as a basis for inclusion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia is neither paper nor a depository for exhuastive lists of trivia. This collection of minor (as it says itself) non-playable (ditto) characters from which only "a number" have features elsewhere falls between two stools. I cannot see this article being rescued. There may be other places for this article but it should not be here doktorb _words^deeds 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Out of universe material that is verifiable and encyclopedic such as this article is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Concern Why is this article, apart from a few voice actor identifications, entirely in-universe information? Where's the critical commentary, the development notes, the toy sales figures? How do these characters serve the narrative? Are some of these characters (e.g. Joaquin) anything more than stock characters (e.g. impulsive kid who gets into trouble)? I can see why some editors' fancruft senses are tingling. Even ducking the notability issue by treating the article as a subpage, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT remains a likely problem. Characters in Hamlet is a good model: the least significant characters are grouped together in short sentences for completeness. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that these characters are non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As already indicated there is out of universe detail, they have real-world significance, WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when there is significant coverage in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - excessive undue weight given to these minor characters in the form of superfluous plot summary. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doctorbuk, Sephiroth BCR, and Doctorfluffy. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment*** WP:POINT doktorb _words^deeds 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, is plot repetition, and should not have an article on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2008 (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.