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. Cirt (talk) 11:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Legend of Legaia characters[edit]

This is a list of characters featured in only one single video game. The plot and character sections in the main article cover them in enough capacity to establish their role. The rest of the content is unnecessary plot summary and game guide material. TTN (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC) TTN (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way to detailed for a single game. Unnessary detail, way to in-game, not suitable for an encyclopedia. Salavat (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs help, but list-of-characters articles are general standard for such a game. CRPGs are generally about characters, and no article on them can be complete without some reasonable detail about the characters. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strip down and merge to Legend of Legaia. (The same should probably be done with the "Locations" article.) JuJube (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it per TTN. Possible redirect to main article. --Izno (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete Not covered in third party sources. It isn't our decision to say that "X" class of game should have detailed articles on characters and the GNG helps (in practice) to prevent us from having to make that decision. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. MuZemike (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the game is covered to a substantial extent, so are the characters, which is sufficient notability--for the minor ones, a separate article is the way to do it. The GNG is totally inapplicable to list articles--the individual items in the list do not need to have notability, and whether the parts of a notable topic should be grouped in a separate article is not a question of notability in the first place. Somehow, I'm not surprised after seeing attempts to delete minor & major character articles, to then see attempts to delete list articles with information about them and leave in only the barest information about only the major characters. I consider this a very limited perspective on what is important in fiction. What amount of summary is "unnecessary" is not really that obvious a question for ann encyclopedia that is not paper--very little content in Wikipedia is strictly speaking "necessary". One could argue that no rational person needs to come here to know about these games in the first place, and eliminate all game articles. Or for that matter, anything else which is covered elsewhere. DGG (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the GNG removes the need for editors like you and me to wonder what in the world all these games are and what detail should we cover them. I take issue with your claim that "if a came is covered, then the characters are covered". This is only true if the coverage of the game mentions the characters in a singificant sense. For plenty of works of fiction, this is the case. For some, reviews often fail to cover even a significant fraction of the major characters in the work of fiction for a variety of reasons. Among the reviews I found of the game (10 print reviews so far, haven't found a copy of the original PSM or Gamepro review yet), not one mentioned any character besides the player character more than once. Further, almost all mentions of the characters were literal mentions of a name, nothing more. Without those sources this list just becomes editors reporting on primary sources. I agree that the notability guideline compromise is pointing toward some leeway toward lists, but I don't think we are in that position. I am not making the demand that all elements be individually covered by third party sources. I'm only making the demand that some be covered. In some capacity. Without that coverage we cannot write a factually neutral article that meets WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DGG really nailed the reasons for keeping, and I see no convincing delete arguments. "Too detailed" could be solved by stripping down and rewriting the article (which it seriously needs), and most of the other arguments read like IDONTLIKEIT and JUSTNOTNOTABLE. McJeff (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as no guideline or policy suggests this is notable. Either it has reliable third-party sources, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it fails bothWP:N and WP:V. Keep in mind that notability has a specialized meaning on Wikipedia that ensures a basic standard of reliability, rather than a measure of importance. Several recent deletion discussions reveal that we hold character lists to high standards, and don't exempt them from our content policies: one, two, three, four, five, six. And those are just from the past couple of weeks. Randomran (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – plot of the game is not extensive to the point that a character list is necessary for understanding of the plot for a reader. As such, this is undue weight and unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Transwikied over to StrategyWiki:Legend of Legaia/Characters. -- Prod (Talk) 05:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created these pages, merged from a whole series of individual pages for each character. I've never played the game myself, and am happy to see them go. Ziggurat 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independant sources to show any notability, and is just an OR plot recap.Yobmod (talk) 11:55, 16 October 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.