List of Darkstalkers characters

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of Darkstalkers characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Less than a week ago, I merged the contents of this list into Darkstalkers#Characters after condensing it down. However, Zxcvbnm objected, citing the previous AfD's consensus.

However, I'm not arguing overlying notability for the characters as a whole separate of the franchise (which is a concern on its own vs reception for individual characters, but I digress), but instead that the list itself does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article, without making it too large, the key concerns for such a split here normally.

I don't feel in its current form a massive list is necessary, and I don't forsee it getting expanded further (the last new character added was Dee in 2005, almost 20 years ago). As it stands, there's no need for a separate article to compound our already overflowing list problem. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: For the sake of transparency, this was the version of the list's page prior to reorganizing, which not only included excessive detail randomly, but also random gameplay bits, trivial reception from past merges, and some very questionable sources (EventHubs, "Flying Omelette"?). The goal of the original reduction was to aim closer to more streamlined lists, and then cite any information as needed. This got interrupted mid-cleanup efforts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zx your argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because "other articles" are established does not mean that one cannot be merged. This not a "No Effort" approach or a lack of "Being Bold", that's an honest observation from someone that has put a fair share of research into this subject. Additionally this is not an attempt at "cleanup" but to make an argument that the list itself does not need to be separate from the parent, which is fair game for AfD to determine consensus. So I will ask that you assume some good faith, and to not be rude.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not fall under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because I am not arguing this article should be kept because it's the same as another particular article. I said that this TYPE of article is common, which implies it is typical under Wikipedia policy. Unless you are arguing that all character lists should not exist, which is not really an issue to be decided in a single AfD, but something like RfC. I didn't mean to marginalize the effort you put into the merger, but cutting something down tends to be easier than building it up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does feel like the argument fits into a form of OTHERSTUFF, because the argument's being made that similar lists are considered "acceptable" on their own on wikipedia, which is debatable on a case by case basis. And I feel significant effort was done to maintain the reader has an understanding of each character in the context of the franchise. If all the information is retained in the series article as it is in the list, how is any information lost?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clemens, not a single thing there addressed my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I suppose. What precise DEL#REASON applies? Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content fork in this case: the information here can fit inside the series article without a loss of material, and stuff like development and reception would apply just as much to the series as the list. No information would be lost, and no need to keep them separate. Articles can still be spun out from the series page just fine also if notability is established for a character later on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing how a character list is an impermissible WP:CFORK. It's neither redundant nor a POV fork. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently an unnecessary fork, and an argument can be further made that it strengthens the body of the series article as a result versus separate from it, and again the dev and reception info would be echoed between the series article and list. It's not a Street Fighter or Guilty Gear situation where we have entry upon entry for many of the characters: Darkstalkers at its core only has two truly "full" games between Darkstalkers/Night Warriors and the many iterations of Vampire Savior.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If all you want is to merge the articles, why is this a nomination for deletion instead of just a merge request? It seems like doing this at AfD just makes the discussion more stressful. Toughpigs (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Information from the article is still in the series article currently, so "Redirect" is a valid option here. But more importantly is that it was quickly obvious this was going to be a contentious subject. AfD is viable for this sort of discussion, especially compared to how much of a mess merge discussions have become where they stretch months on end before requesting a closer, at least as far as VG project articles go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've just admitted that there is no reason this content is impermissible: No WP:CFORK violation exists, no other WP:DEL#REASON applies. Am I wrong? If so, please point me out the policy-based rationale for starting this deletion discussion. I'm just not seeing it. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the content on the list can fit into the main series article just fine without a loss of information; the current series article demonstrates that. Can we not engage in wikilawyering?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering is defined as "Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities". Asking for a basic policy reason when you gave none (besides "it's not necessary", more of a WP:USELESS argument) is not a technicality. There's something wrong if you think that anyone who dares argue a different opinion is being a Wikilawyer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgrading my keep to speedy keep per #3: no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Look, I'm fine with using AfD as articles for discussion--I quite favor it, in fact--but the price of entry is that you have to provide at least one rationale by which the target article could be deleted. I've asked. You haven't. So you can take this to a talk page discussion, but AfD should not be asked to compel a merge outcome when there is no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLAR-ing is supposed to be a viable alternative to AfD if we feel it's reasonable. That's not a "stealthy attempt to delete", that's the results of a very length WP:BEFORE and examination of the sources, it wasn't done in bad faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then use AfD. That was not a good topic to BLAR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLAR is specifically for uncontroversial topics, not just ones you think are reasonable. As WP:BLAR says, ""Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial [...] cases of blanking and redirecting." The majority of video game characters should be considered controversial to merge unless the page is WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It's not about whether the list meets LISTN or not, it's about whether there needs to be a split in the first place. KFM has proven that this list reasonably fits within the Darkstalkers article without disrupting it, so I don't see a need for an unnecessary content fork here. Arguments above have been ignoring the core argument of this AfD, which is about whether or not this split is necessary. NLIST isn't being argued here, that can be established, it's whether or not we really need this article to be separated. Based off what I'm seeing, I don't think a split is necessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: I am unsure if you are aware, but the article was pared down to a tiny fraction of its former size prior to being "merged", including removal of numerous WP:RS. It fits in its current, barely-there state, but not in its previous fleshed-out one. I don't think much has been "proven" here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any cut characters. The only issue I see is that RS were removed, and if that is the case, simply add them back to the article. One or two articles per character (Which seems pretty unlikely) should not bloat the article to a significant extent. This seems like a matter that can be resolved by simple editing, and if the article does in fact achieve significant bloat by adding the sources to its current state, then that can be a separate split discussion. The size is manageable, and further discussion should have been done before a BLAR revert. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: This is what you really want to defend as "fleshed out"? Really? The one with Eventhubs, "FlyingOmelete", and leftover gameguide commentary from past merges?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources really were unreliable, yes - there were a number of blatant blogs that failed WP:USERG outright. But you are cherry-picking the absolute worst sources that for sure should have been removed. You also deleted many usable sources, so it was, in the most charitable interpretation, a rushed, "baby out with the bathwater" situation. Why was a full article on Anakaris from VentureBeat written by a WIRED journalist deleted despite being SIGCOV? Such things completely torpedo your argument that all the cleanup you did was of poor sources, and that the characters cannot be expanded within the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did jump in on this during an ongoing effort to clean it up and rework the series article as a whole, a long term effort not unlike those you do. The list was merged less than a weak ago, and had an AfD disrupt things to boot. Stuff like VentureBeat wasn't worked back in *yet*, but it also doesn't say a lot and can be taken down to a sentence. For comparison, the List of generation I Pokémon is being worked on by cogsan, and many of those Pokemon undoubtedly have at least one SIGCOV article somewhere, but one also has to consider the list as a whole. That said it feels like some of this could be ironed out on my talk page instead of muddying this discussion further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a longterm effort at cleanup, gutting and/or blanking this article is the very wrong way to go about it. It should remain untouched, and a new draft created elsewhere until it is ready to replace the existing content. At that point you can start a merge discussion using the draft as evidence. It still doesn't mean deleting this article wholesale is merited at all regardless of how poor quality you think it is right now. Currently there is no replacement for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ＶＲＸＣＥＳ Offering some food for thought, but I feel a big thing to consider with that comparison is that MK, Street Fighter and KoF also have had 10+ games each to build canon from for their characters. Darkstalkers, as a series has only had two: Night Warriors is a re-release of Darkstalkers with two characters and the bosses playable, while every game after is just a modified version of Vampire Savior, story and all. When distilled there really isn't much story per character, or traits.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has done searches for Darkstalkers characters, there's very little sigcov on the cast. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories