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 This article has been given a lot of time. It still lacks evidence of real world notability and adequate sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titans (Crash of the Titans)[edit]

Titans (Crash of the Titans) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article has been tagged with notability and sourcing concerns since October 2007 and tagged for cleanup since May 2008. A prod was removed mid-May stating that these discussions are usually controversial. Since then, the article still fails notability and verifiability. It cites no reliable sources from which to draw information. I would also suggest that it also fails WP:FICT, as notability for the individual characters or character grouping is not demonstrated through adequete sources. Finally, per WP:NOT, this article approaches the content in an in universe perspective and would be more suitable for a gaming wiki.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 16:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain for now. This depends on the notability of the game, partially. I'm keeping in mind, too, that we're not a game guide. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list of minor, mostly generic, obstacles from a (marginally notable) video game. Giving an object eyes and legs doesn't necessarily make it a character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a game-guide. It's tagged already to merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters; that article or Crash of the Titans should receive the character bios of the major characters; the minor characters should probably go. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, nothing more than a list of enemies with excessive detail. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:38, 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 passes What Wikipedia is. Plenty of reader interest and editor efforts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Specific details of Titans and enemies in the game do not appear to be related to understanding the game's plot or gameplay (the specifics of what Titans are is already described in detail in the main game article); content is all too much GAMEGUIDE details, and I see no way these characters can be talked about outside of one sentence that doesn't go into guide-type specifics. Transwiki content if possible. --MASEM 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Even in a worst case scenerio we would merge and redirect this legitimate search term without deletion to Crash of the Titans, but there's no justification for an outright deletion here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 12:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As it already is a disambiguation, it is not a good search term, though I do notice that there's a few other pages that point here, redirection makes sense only since the term's been used. However it is a good idea to have this as Titan disamb, which I notice it is already there, just needs redirection to the best section in that article. --MASEM 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The content is covered in the Crash of the Titans - one-game characters, especially in a game that wasn't very well-received commercially or critically, don't need their own list of characters. For precedence, both lists of characters for Mario & Luigi were deleted, despite both receiving great reviews and selling very well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We have lots of content that overlaps from what article to another, but it's no reason to outright delete say the article on Normandy, just because it's covered in the article on World War II, now if all of this article is in fact covered elsewhere, then we would redirect, but not delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not compare a list of characters in a video game to a real-life REGION. Most of the content in the list of characters is awful, and guide content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Content should be fixed and revised rather than outright deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And how exactly do you intend to fix it? The article needs to be completely rewritten. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to be rude, but since you're the only one so far who believes the article should be kept, why don't you WP:SOFIXIT? As it says, "If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do it yourself." I doubt any of the folks here in favor of deletion are going to fix it, or think that it can be fixed. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Because I have been. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it stands now. Information about the Titans would fit a lot better into the character article. The Prince (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, then we could move or redirect the article and still keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Voting Redirect counts towards keep. Stop trying to coax people into voting redirect. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which would be an okay thing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't think that harassing every deleter into voting redirect so that the article would get kept (as opposed to redirected). You're basically admitting that you're trying to get people to vote redirect so that the discussion DEFAULTS to keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please do not derail the discussion by taking it into an ad hominem area. AfDs are discussions, not votes, i.e. not simple lists of keeps and deletes. I do not make accusations against those who reply to my arguments (so long as they focus on the argument) in AfDs. Making a suggestion in response to an editor's comment is engaging them in discussion; I never call people out by name or what have you. In discussion we engage and interact with each other about the article under discussion. Engaging those arguing to delete and challenging them on their reasons will hopefully lead us to an actual consensus and the article should be kept anyway, so if we end up with a scenario in which a legitimate search term is kept and thereby allow for a more effective opportunity to continue improving and developing our coverage of Crash of the Titans, it is a good thing. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe he's trying to convince people to !vote redirect because he feels that it's the best course of action to take. Do you have any indications that he feels otherwise? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not entirely convinced. If he wanted it redirected, I would think he would have changed his "vote" to redirect rather than keep (in fact, he never expressed interest in redirecting in his "vote"). - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll clarify: If someone is bothered merging this article into the Crash Bandicoot character list, I think it can be redirected there. If no one's bothered, or if people think the Titans seem out of place in the list, then there's no reason to keep it, or save the articles history. The Prince (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • In regard to this, one-game characters should not be included in the list. It's not an indiscriminate collection of every single Crash Bandicoot character in the series' history. And what's the point in a redirect? Who's going to search for the title it's currently at? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • All of the editors and readers of the article came upon it somehow and since it gets thousands of hits a month, it seems a legitimate search term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I do believe that's traffic, not searches. That tells us how many times the article was searched for AND clicked on. That doesn't counter the fact that people simply would not search for that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Someone created the article and therefore thinks it is a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • They didn't search for it. A user who edits Crash Bandicoot articles regularly made the article. If this article were redirected or merged, there would be very little potential for anyone to search for it. The article would be most likely accessed by means of people searching Titans, or searching simply for the game itself. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Are you sure they didn't search for it? We could outright ask everyone who ever edited it on their talk page how they found it? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (unindent) You seem sure that he created the article after having searched for it. Your argument is basically taking information that can indicate any number of things, and only picking one of those things for it to indicate, instead of another conflicting option. The editor seems to specialize in Crash Bandicoot articles, so assuming he created the article after searching for the article's title is assuming that the less likely scenario is the true scenario. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nominator. Article does not meet the general notability guideline because it lacks independent secondary sources that significantly cover the subject. WP:LISTS notes that lists are subject to the same guidelines as articles. The problem is a lack of notability. Randomran (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article can be verified in published game material. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem isn't verifiability. It's notability. Randomran (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The topic is notable, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on what? I'm not sure I see the notability in enemies that appear in one game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The various sources used. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge if necessary. Gameguidish information (WP:NOT#GUIDE) of little or no notability (WP:N). Crash_of_the_Titans#Characters is surprisingly good however, lowering the necessity of this list even more. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Excessive amount of in-universe detail. I'm not sure how listing what game levels each entity appears on is suitable for a general encyclopedia. The independent references are of dubious reliability; there's nothing here I would even consider merging into the main article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not excesive for a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure you can't argue that paperless encyclopedias can have as much content as the editors want them to have. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can argue whatever we want, whether it's convincing or not is another matter. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real word significance, an encyclopedia should not contain minute details about every video game ever published that nobody cares about. If this is important, provide reliable sources that prove it, not freewebs hosted sources either. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you stop telling people who say to Delete to fix the problems themselves? They're not going to go out of their way to solve the problems of this article for you. If you don't want the article deleted, Wikipedia;SOFIXIT. No one else is going to do your job for you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If those who simply do not like certain articles stop arbitrarily deciding what others who are willing to edit can edit, I will gladly do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He does not "simply dislike the article". He gave legitimate complaints about the article, and he's not obligated to "fix it himself". If you don't like his legitimate complaints about the article to stop being legit, "fix it yourself". There's nowhere that suggests that you can just throw SOFIXIT around an AfD at any complaint, it'd be like doing it at the FAC, telling anyone who points out a flaw in the article to fix it themselves. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence is on the editor wishing to retain material, not the editor wishing to delete it. Instead of harassing me, go fix it yourself. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be nice if others helped per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, especially when the article is consistent with What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't cite user pages as evidence for your case... such a concept as "Don't Destroy" basically says that any AfD is destructive. And AGAIN you cited a user page. And regardless, even if we did look at Don't Destroy, the people voted Delete for a number of reasons, which were not addressed (outside of apathy towards them). The people who voted Delete are not obligated to tighten their belt and go to work on the article that they don't think needs to exist. And quite frankly, you've never done anything to address problems with notability or sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can, as we cite user essays all the time in discussions when we believe they present compelling arguments. "Don't destroy" obviously does not include hoaxes, libels, or copy vios that I definitely agree should be deleted, but refers to articles like this one that do not have insurmountable problems. The people who "it's not a vote" to delete are encouraged even by the deletion instructions to first see if they can improve the articles in question. And quite frankly, I've done a great deal to address the concerns about notability and sources. One can ignore that a banana is a banada, but it doesn't chance the fact that it is indeed a banada just as they fact is that I have added sources that do augment the article's notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essays are irrelevant, when the arguments to delete are policy based. If people spent more time writing policy compliant articles instead of writing whiny essays about articles being deleted the problems would solve themselves. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essay are relevant when the arguments to keep are policy based. If people spent more time working to improve the articles than trying to delete them we would have more good and featured articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOT#GUIDE. Nuff said. Eusebeus (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability has not been demonstrated for this grouping of enemies-cum-vehicles, via multiple reliable sources focusing on them in detail, searching for sources has drawn a blank. Someoneanother 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As they are titular aspects of the game, they are noable. Sources would be a combination of the game itself and reviews mentioning the Titans. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? There's no guideline that even hints that being a titular aspect of a game makes the subject notable. Hell, there are guidelines saying that if the subject of the article doesn't have any importance outside of its parent subject (in this case, characters in a game), if they don't have any notability besides their notability to that one game, they don't need an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the guideline of common sense. A titular subject would at worst be redirected. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No assertion of notability, no evidence of reliable sources, satisfies the (negative) criteria of WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:NOT#GUIDE. And before it's said, I don't think it's possible to fix it to meet WP:N, WP:FICT, or the proposed WP:TOY. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The games themselves and the reviews of the games are reliable sources. WP:ITSCRUFT is not a reason to delete. The notability is that they are titular aspects of a notable work of fiction. [{WP:FICT]] is still being seriously debated and so it's hard for anything to pass or fail it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrate that they meet WP:N with non-trivial reliable references, and I will be convinced. Until then my vote stays delete. Merely repeating (what I read before I made my original post) that they are "titular aspects of a notable game" doesn't make the "titular aspects" individually notable. And you can say that they are "titular aspects of a notable game" a thousand times, but saying that doesn't make them so (or, more importantly, prove that is the case). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See for example the multiple sources found here. There are non-trivial reliable references there. Merely repeating that they aren't notable, does not mean they aren't. To be specific, such references as this are reliable secondary sources that focuses entirely on characters indicated in the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources show that Stench or Scorporilla are notable? (Just as a couple of examples.) Could you point those out to me please? The mere number of Google hits tells me nothing about the notability of these characters (not the game, but the characters). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like this in which a game maker is asked, "How did you come up with characters such as Scorporilla, Ratcicle, Parafox and Shellephant?" And the game maker replies, "First of all, we wanted to create characters that were fun and fresh but also empowering to control, so we incorporated a few different iconic creatures together into one super-mutant-animal – like combining a scorpion and a gorilla to make Scorporilla." Thus, coupled wit the preview source listed above, we actually do have coverage of these specific characters and their creation/inspiration in multiple reliable sources. Obviously, articles titled "Crash of the Titans - A Bestiary: Five of the twisted denizens of Crash's new adventure" focus directly on the characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Just because it's being debated does ot mean that it passes ANYTHING. If the Titans are notable because they're the subject of one single game, that would mean that there would be thousands upon thousands of articles in existence solely because of one significant role. And how do the games or the reviews establish notability in any way at all?
      • Which would not be a problem for a paperles encyclopedia with thousands of editors. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just curious, is there any reason why the characters need to have this one separate list? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because contributors and readers believe their is wikipedic value to it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is invalid on its face. "It's notable because the readers and contributors say so"? I'm more interested in WHY they do, not that they DO. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's valid per Wikipedia:Editors matter. I'm interested in retaining people who are willing to expand and develop articles; I believe they are more apt to do so when we allow them to edit articles we sometimes don't like. In this particular case, the article provides some additional coverage not found in the main article. I was able to find some out of universe information and even an secondary source article that focused solely on characters presented in this article. Therefore, I believe the article serves a purpose and one has to assume per good faith that the article creator and subsequent editors think similarly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why do you keep constantly linking to essays?! They have NO purpose in this discussion. And may I add that even if your source was good enough, we're also looking at a game which did not make the top ten anything in NPD, and reviewed "okay". I see no reason to believe that calling this game a "notable video game" (implying that it's particularly notable) is a farce. I'd say most Crash Bandicoot games are more notable than Crash of the Titans. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because they make solid arguments and because editors on both sides of these discussions link to essays all the time. Just because a game is not a top ten game, does not mean a paperless encyclopedia should not cover it fully. Implying that it's not notable enough for Wikipedia's purposes is a farce. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • You can't CITE solid arguments. You can't say "this has to be done per (blank)" just because you like it, it has to be enforceable under ANY definition of the word, and essays are not. If they were good enough to be enforceable, they wouldn't be essays.
                • And STOP bringing up paperless encyclopedia, as if being paperless means we should have lax guidelines for inclusion.
                • What am I supposed to do? Without you establishing why Crash of the Titans is an especially notable game, all I can say is that all existing sources for sales information don't mention Crash of the Titans performing well at all. Considering that Crash Bandicoot titles sell at fairly unexceptional numbers and usually get poor reviews, I hardly see why this would be the exception in both.
                • And no, one-game characters who have one person asking of their creation and nothing else is NOT notable enough for its own article. The article on the game isn't even big enough to warrant splitting to an article on the Titans. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I can cite solid arguments. I can say that I think an article should be kept based on these reasonings. Even the guidelines and policies allow for wiggle room. Being paperless does mean that we should have lax guidelines for inclusions. Crash of the Titans is covered in multiple reliable sources. How much more notability can anyone reasonably need? Sometimes poor performance actually leads to some degree of negative notability (infamy, notoriety, etc.). I am not by the way opposed to merging and redirecting this new information without deleting the article per the GFDL if others think it would help the other article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It can't be applied as an argument here just like fancruft can't be. And the guidelines and policies allow for OCCASIONAL EXCEPTIONS, not for them to be arbitrarily ignored when the editor decides that it's in his or her best interests to do so. And let's just say we SHOULD be lax. That'd be nice, if it mattered - I'm pretty sure "we aren't lax" takes precedence. Being lax is the same as being less legitimate than a real encyclopedia - you're basically suggesting that being paperless should allow for the encyclopedia to have poor standards for inclusion. And your claims that Crash of the Titans is ludicrous - no one said the game wasn't notable. They were saying that the characters in the game are not. You keep commenting that "Crash of the Titans is notable" as if that matters enough to say that the characters as well are. And poor performance leading to notability is "extremely poor performance" - ie, BG&E (sales), E.T. (ratings). Crash of the Titans did not have significant marketing, significant sales, or significant ratings. Conversely, it did not have "exceptionally bad marketing", "exceptionally bad sales", or "exceptionally bad ratings". It's not notable in any of those fields - it's only notable in that it's a released game, and it has the basic notability fields covered. A lack of being exceptionally notable - positively or negatively - makes it very unlikely that the Titans are notable characters. And Hell, they're not even characters - they're transportation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It's in Wikipedia's best interest to allow for these articles. I saying being paperless should allow for open-minded and encyclopedic standards of inclusion. The characters are notable, bceause they are titular characters and because they did receive the focus of at least one article and because we do have out of universe information on them. There's obviously reader and contributor interest and obviously an effort underway to improve the article. We don't gain anything by deleting here and again, I'm not unwilling to allow for a merge and redirect without deletion, but there's no urgent need to remove this article this week. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • You may think that the guidelines are wrong, but they are not. And just a question - you keep mentioning being titular as a reason for inclusion, but I've never heard of any guideline or policy that even suggests that being the titular character(s) of a game makes the character(s) notable. If being titular made a character notable, under your logic, every single main character of every single movie, game, book, comic, etc. would have to have their own article. Looking at Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure, if being the titular character was a good argument, we would have an article on Zack, and article on Wiki, and an article on Barbaros, who are all in the title - Z&W are the main characters, and the plot surrounds Barbaros. And all you've ever shown was A. one person asking one developer one question about the background of a handful of the Titans, and one guide of the Titans' powers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pure game guide material with no evidence nor even assertion of real-world notability, see consensus from e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination). --Stormie (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such sections as Titans_(Crash_of_the_Titans)#Creation are not game guide and have real world information. Consensus in similar AfDs were to keep. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. You didn't address the game guide content - in fact, you strengthened it by basically saying "okay, most of it is, but look at this section, no game guide content here!"
      2. And you didn't address the "real life notability" issue.
      3. And you're talking about "similar AfDs"? Similar how? Series? Style? Situation? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • I addressed it by saying that the article is in the process of being revised in such a manner that expands on the out of universe context (I'm obviously still trying to do that and it would be nice if say others would help...). As for real life notability, it is a game played by people in the real world with charaters important enough that IGN devoted a whole article to them. Other AfDs on video game characters have not closed as delete, so we can't really claim a consensus either way there based on precedent. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Creation" paragraph would be a quite reasonable one to merge into Crash of the Titans. --Stormie (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Article has been revised during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly valid as a subarticle to discuss characters in greater detail than is possible in the main article. References beyond the game itself have been included (but should be used more extensively). Something I don't quite understand is why this isn't crafted as a more general article on the characters in the game, as opposed to covering just the "titans". It might address some of the concerns if the article was reworked to broaden its scope. Everyking (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. size issues suggests this is better standing alone. As a list, notability lies in a parent article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The topic doesn't have anything to actually hold it up in the area of notability, and it easily be summed up within any relevant articles. TTN (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic does have the fact of reliable source and that the Titans are titular characters to hold it up in the area of notability. Also, articles that can be summed up elsewhere are merged and redirected without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable sources, not reliable source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And may I add that one reliable source on the creation doesn't cut it? The entire section is based solely on that one question asking how he came up with four of the Titans. It pretty much just restates what the developer said, and nothing more (even going so far as to name the interviewer). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a start and part of an ongoing process. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've only ever asserted that the Creation is important, so why not just merge it to the game article and improve it there? You haven't really done anything to improve the content of the characters, but at the same time, use the Creation section to advocate its existence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without prejudice to renomination. I tend to agree with LGR and Casliber's assesment that the article is worth keeping, however, it is in dire need of cleanup and removal of gameguide content. As I'm unfamiliar with the series it seems to me that the article may be unimprovable, but as there seems to be a general level of interest in rescuing it, it should be kept and given a chance to improve. McJeff (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no claim or evidence of real world notability. Also sources such as freeweb7.com, deviantart.com and youtube.com does not strike me as useful --T-rex 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly suggest Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles save the Creation section. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are these characters, or enemies/power ups (does the main character take control of them a'la Little Nemo)? Hewinsj (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - Removed some sections to make the article sound less like a guide. Also, the titans mentioned on this page are returning for the next Crash game, Mind Over Mutant, and may potentially return for a third game if the trend continues. People here have citied there is no real-world signifigance of the character, yet looking at several mario characters, there are whole articles on rather insignifigant characters. Tell me, how does Birdo contribute to our culture or society? He/she doesn't. Video games characters aren't real, and labeling an article about a character (or several characters) unneeded because of such is unfounded and biased. However, I agree that the article needs major cleanup. Possibly more references. But when Mind Over Mutant is released, we should have more information on the titans (as well as some new Titan sections). Another thing is, someone critisized the references on the page. What's wrong with citing a freewebs page? Crashmania is a legit site and is referenced on many other crash pages. The deviantart reference is that of an artist that worked for Radical and gives legit information as well. The youtube reference can be taken off, I just wanted to provide proof of the quote so that people don't remove the quote saying that it isn't "cited". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobb (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 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.