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) 11:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Psychonauts[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) 17:37, 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 Unnessary detail for a single game, way to detailed, and resembles a game guide, so really doesnt belong here. Salavat (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this game is highly character driven (see quote below) as list of characters is key to understanding the game. As reasonable break out article it should be kept in any case as lists of characters for notable TV, movie, and games tends to be acceptable. This article is fairly poor, but need not be a game guide. [1], [2], and even things like [3] show the notability and importance of the characters. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From Cnet's review (linked to above) "The basic plot itself reads like typical platformer fodder, but there's a lot more to Psychonauts' story than can be summed up in a single paragraph. This is largely due to the game's bizarre cast of characters, of which there are many. Raz himself is a highly likable hero; he's cute, heroic, funny, and also a little awkward at times. He fits the bill of the overenthusiastic yet not-quite-ready hero to the letter and it's hard not to feel sympathetic to his plight. But beyond Raz, there's a great supporting cast, with roughly two dozen other characters who play parts both large and small in the story." It goes on. Hobit (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I wrote the most important characters needed to understand the plot in the body of the article way back. If this was a series, I'd argue differently, but... --MASEM 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question, does that merge then prohibit a delete result here due to the GFDL? (or an undo of the merge I guess then delete). Not trying to wiki-lawyer, just want to know. Hobit (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a merge, what I wrote in the characters was a restatement from the plot on the page, no content from the list page used, so no need to keep. Not that "List of characters in Psychonauts" isn't a usable search term. --MASEM 14:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much detail for one game. Relevant character information belongs in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We shouldn't be in the business of creating articles on the basis of brief mentions in reviews. We should be (and the GNG substantiates this) looking for coverage of the subjects themselves. If sources don't deign to cover the characters in Psychonauts, then it isn't our decision to cover them first. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did notice that one of the above sources covers many of the characters? I'm not certain it a RS, but certainly not OR or a case of us covering them first. Hobit (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not far. If, say, the Psychonauts wiki talks about the characters before we do it is still basically the case that wikipedia is assembling information first. I don't literally mean "someone is coming up with a new theory right now in the edit window" so much as I mean "reliable sources haven't covered it and we're making interpretation and selection choices where we should be offloading that decision on to others". If no one who has to make editorial decisions (meaning choose between stories or pay to publish a book) has decided the characters are worth covering, it isn't our job to jump the queue. That's what I mean. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is a RS, would that be enough to move you to keep? I can try to figure out if it's self-published or not. Hobit (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of characters in ... articles are a good idea generally. We shouldn't itend to have the detail of the specialized wki, but basic information here is appropriate & articles like this are the way to do it. All named characters with more than trivial roles should be included, not just the "main" ones--but that kind of dispute belongs on article talk pages, not here. The CNet review is highly relevant on this. DGG (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to renomination. Allow a couple weeks for the editors involved in the article to try and pull up some sources, if they can't/don't, relist. McJeff (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly in-universe, with not a single real source that I can see. All of this detail adds up it being a game guide. which is not Wikipedia's role. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as violating WP:NOT by going beyond a WP:CONCISEPLOT. No reliable third-party sources that offer significant critical out-of-universe information to support an article, thus failing WP:N. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to the sources above (one of which I will note has a (short) page for basically every character on this list), there is also a fair bit about the characters at [4]. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without prejudice to the history: Most game articles really only need the one article to contain its plot. Two, depending on circumstances, is usually too much, especially for a single game. I'm not seeing anything in the sources provided in the Raz AfD that indicates this article can go above and beyond being a repeat of the plot summary. Nifboy (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not for rehashing of plot summaries. ~~Also lacks verifiable sources as already stated above.~~ MuZemike (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erb? You did look at the sources above yes? CNET (for example) is clearly reliable, and all are verifiable. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no; I missed them. (I actually thought you were talking about in the article.) Consider the latter reason struck, but however I still think fails WP:NOT and will remain at delete. MuZemike (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Transwikied to StrategyWiki:Psychonauts/Characters. -- Prod (Talk) 05:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poor to no referencing and little or no notability established outside the context of the game itself. Already transwikied to the strategywiki, so the content isn't lost. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already transwikied to where it should be, and is almost nothing to merge, as there are no citations, so would be merging OR.Yobmod (talk) 11:54, 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.