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 no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romancing SaGa characters[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot and character information that belongs in the Romancing SaGa article. As it asserts zero notability on its own, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world), and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#What Wikipedia is:. Plenty of reader interest and editor efforts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is repetition of plot from Romancing SaGa, and it is infinitely better than Romancing SaGa in terms of organizing character information. There has been consensus in the past that accepted this article as opposed to separate page on individual character. (Article was created by an admin per AfD consensus) see:

--PeaceNT (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character lists such as this are acceptable spinout articles to prevent the main article onthe subject from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The WikiProject Video games has precise guidelines which are more specific than the generic ones. The article fails WP:VGSCOPE in particular: "A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable.", "A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed." A WikiProject-wide consensus is decided and agreed upon by more people than an article consensus. Besides, these previous AFDs are from 2005-2006; the guidelines were not the same at that time. Kariteh (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles are consistent with our policies, however, which trump the guidelines. The article actually passes WP:VGSCOPE because lists of characters are necessary and notable. There is no consensus that such articles do not meet our guidelines and more people (those creating and editing these articles plus those arguing to keep in the AfDs) actually agree that such articles are suitable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is not consistent with the policies. It fails to establish notability, and standalone lists of characters are not necessary when the information is already encyclopedically covered in the main game article. In addition to what's already covered in the main article, the list currently describes minor non-player characters and non-plot-related bosses, none of which are encyclopedic. The current list is essentially a repetition of information from the main article with trivial details added in. Kariteh (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is consistent with the policies. It successfully establishes notability, and we have many articles that share information (if anything is comletely duplicated, then we redirect rather than delete). Minor NPCs and bosses are wikipedic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You haven't quoted any policy on this page. If you're thinking about Wikipedia:Five pillars, this is a general summary that appears not to be pertinent here. The article fails WP:VGSCOPE guideline ("A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable.") since it doesn't establish notability as defined by the notability guidelines: it has consistently remained unreferenced since its creation two years ago. One could argue that the game is an implicit source, but it's not a secondary source independent from the subject. Kariteh (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually I have. The article passes the videgame scope guideline, because lists of characters are notable and verifiable. Plus, guidelines allow for exceptions anyway. As for secondary sources, look at reviews that comment on the characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I think characters of a notable role-playing game are notable in themselves. We cover Romancing SaGa as a topic on Wikipedia because this game is notable, and the (main) characters are certainly an important part of this coverage. Also, this is a list, and WP:VGSCOPE only explicitly mentions "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts" as inappropriate lists, so I don't think this characters lists fail WP:VGSCOPE at all. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's the seventh point in the guideline. The first one is "A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable." So far, the notability of the characters and bosses/monsters has not been established. The article remains devoid of any source, let alone extensive third-party sources. Kariteh (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I still disagree that the characters are non-notable, so we might have to agree to differ here. :) Anyway, the guideline you cited opposes splitting, but doesn't support deleting smaller articles. Would you consider voting the list to be merged to Romancing SaGa article, like how it is with Romancing SaGa 2? There're many main characters in the list, I don't think we should remove them all from wikipedia. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Excessive in-universe information. Marasmusine (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not excessive for an online paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an unnecessary expansion of in-universe information that can easily be summed up within the main article. TTN (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a necessary expansion of inoformation. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete' - I am in agreement with TTN. Eusebeus (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - excessive undue weight on a part of the series that can be adequately summarized in the main article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it can be adequately summarized elsewhere then we would merge and redirect rather than outright delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources to verify that the information isn't original research. The subject fails WP:NOTE by not containing any secondary sources, and as such is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources exist to verify this notable and unoriginal topic, which is why there's no reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh...that doesn't have any information whatsoever about the characters...and the trailer (which I can't seem to find) appears to be a primary source, not a secondary. I'm of the opinion that we should only go into the detail that the sources go into. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It demonstrates notability in that they would focus coverage on characters and should be used in conjunction with other sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, if the sources go into no detail, neither should we. We cannot speculate beyond what is published and reliable, otherwise we end up with original research. That leaves no way of judging whether the information adheres to WP:NPOV. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is why I am in the process of adding such sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Same as below, not trying to belittle your efforts, but that doesn't address the serious problems. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article merely has surmountable problems that are actively being dealt with. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In your opinion. My opinion is different. Seraphim♥Whipp 09:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Romancing SaGa, which is rather short at the moment. Interested parties can then merge some bits and pieces of the notable characters, but this isn't strictly necessary. A character list for one non-particularly-notable however is definitely not necessary for encyclopedic coverage. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article has been revised to encyclopedic standards during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Also, note that such reliable independent sites as IGN do focus some coverage on the characters as seen at "Five Minutes of Romancing Saga: Meet all the characters from Square Enix's upcoming remake." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to belittle your efforts, but you call this change a revision to encyclopedic standards? I also cannot get the IGN trailer to work. That's simply nowhere enough to reconsider the previous !votes; actually, it reinforces the delete !votes. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is one of several ongoing revisions that sufficiently reinforce the keep arguments per now we know there's potential to improve the article in question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the primary article as at 18kb and 4kb they could easily stand being merged. As a list, the material should have the out-of-universe material in the main page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perfectly valid list, provides greater detail than what is appropriate for the main article. Everyking (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There is only one secondary source. Worse, the only secondary source does not provide significant coverage. In fact, it doesn't describe the characters at all. Randomran (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though they do have coverage in reliable secondary sources and the article is undergoing a significant revision? What about postponing while the revising process continues (I haven't exhausted all likely source search places yet)? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the main article, which is currently a stub. This list does not have a chance of improving, as there aren't any reliable sources available. If you can find some Le Grand Roi, please show me them. The Prince (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is fine as a sub-article of Romancing SaGa. --Pixelface (talk) 13:54, 21 June 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.