If this proposal fails, I would be tempted to bring it back in an expanded scope. In particular, I think it could be expanded to cover on-line identities like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cidsa. e.g. A page about a person's alter ego (e.g. game character or screen name) may be deleted speedily, unless the article establishes notability for the alter ego.. The tough part is notability. There are a few notable cases, like Kibo. How could we word this so that [1] wouldn't be eligible for speedy deletion? — Pburka 5 July 2005 01:30 (UTC)

• Clearly, we cannot, as that article is in practical terms indistinguishable from articles about Usenet and discussion forum personalities (that cite sources) that the usual consensus is to delete. (X is a person who is famous for trolling/posting/being worshipped on the rec.sulking Usenet newsgroup/some discussion forum. Xyr FAQ can be found here. The term Xification has been coined to refer to the act of being trolled by X/X joining a thread/X making legal threats against one. External links: Search Google Groups for posts by X.) Speedy deletion is not the place to make the decision. Uncle G 5 July 2005 02:26 (UTC)
• The criterion 'having made an impact beyond the involved newsgroup/game/...' (or some variation thereof) would help. Kibo is notable as a meme, for getting involved in every newsgroup, for instance. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 15:07 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in Warcraft III#Custom_maps there is a long list of red links to custom maps, many of which do not have articles, and at least one of which has been deleted, and then recreated multiple times and speedied under the substantially identical clause.

Having not participated in these discussions, I am unsure why one particular map would qualify for deletion while many others still exist. But, it seems to me if you are going to not allow individual characters, then custom maps are similar, and these should be discuraged, and the red links on the above page should all be unlinked? --ssd 5 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

• I would support unlinking all those maps. There is not enough to say about individual maps to give them an encyclopedic article (per WP:NOT); describing a number of them in a list would be more useful (see also, WP:FICT). Maps are not covered by any CSD proposal simply because we don't see them on VFD all that often. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 15:07 (UTC)

Are these included? PeregrineAY July 5, 2005 10:11 (UTC)

• NPCs that are part of the story of a published work of fiction (e.g. Baldur's Gate) would be covered under WP:FICT. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 15:07 (UTC)

I support this proposal, but perhaps the following alternative may be better:

"An article that is obviously about a player-created fictional character or team from a game, including but not limited to tabletop roleplaying games, LARPs, forum RPGs, MUDs, and MMORPGs"

This excludes NPCs and fixed player characters (such as Link from Legend of Zelda), and removes the arbitrary restriction to RPGs (other sorts of games have character creation modes too, such as pro wrestling games). It also closes the loophole that player-character articles that fail to check their fiction would be immune.

Obviously I don't think this proposal should be reworded to match, or that this be added to the existing list of proposals during the current vote, but perhaps at some future date. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

• I agree this is an improvement, and I would probably support this in a later vote if it is proposed. DES 7 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
  • Excellent suggestion. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 13:20 (UTC)
    • Changing it this way would be good. Otherwise, it's quite flawed. Andre (talk) 05:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • What Andre said. This is probably the best way to reword it without endangering any articles that actually WOULD be encyclopedic, like any number of [major] Final Fantasy characters, Link (as mentioned), or heck, from expanding on to video game characters in general. --Shadow Hog 13:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed, this would be a better alternative to the current proposal. --ZeWrestler 13:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Same. The worst in this proposal is the number of open ends it leaves and a quite limited spectrum. I am willing to support this revision if it ever makes to the voting stage. ^wS;✉ 14:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good proposal, but accomodation needs to be made for notable player-created characters. I don't play MMOs or tabletop games or anything like that, but I think that there is the potential for certain characters to become legendary within their universe and encyclopedic. I'm not saying it has happened or that it will, but it could. Maybe it's better if we keep this for VfD. Cookiecaper 23:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any situation where a player-created character would be notable outside of the context of its creator. — Gwalla | Talk 01:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to name one, then:

"LEEEEROOOOOOOOOOOOOY! JEEEENNNNKIIIIINSSS!!!"

That one little guy in that short film has become popular enough to at least leave the World of Warcraft fandom and creep into others, too. Maybe not necessarily article-worthy, but notable enough to be more than worth mentioning. I mean... at least he had chicken. --Shadow Hog 03:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can't forget "Furor Planedefiler" (and his guild, Fires of Heaven) or "Fansy the bard" (sand giants, anyone?) from EverQuest ..come on, they are legendary in the EQ community :) I support this alternative with the addition of *noteable* player-created characters. --Naha|^(talk) 04:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

How do you define notable.--ZeWrestler 12:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well known at least within the given community. The two examples I have given are of "famous" or "infamous" (in the case of Fansy) in the EQ community. What that means is that A LOT people outside their guild and their server etc. have heard of them, know who they are and have a basic knowledge of why they "stand out" in the community. Do Google searches for Furor and Fansy and you will see what I mean :) --Naha|^(talk) 14:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, if the character is fairly well-known OUTSIDE the community due to whatever happened in the community, that would probably also be an indication. My example, the infamous Leeroy Jenkins, has become a YTMND fad (regardless of whether they'll admit it or not), and a very popular Internet video. --Shadow Hog 05:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I am here to support both changes to the original proposal, so that it applies only to less-than legendary player created characters, since it is true they can become legendary. [www.escapistmagazine.com The Escapist] Online Magazine happens to be offline right now (will update with a better link when it comes back), but one of the issues has a particularily good article to examplify how a user created character can be legendary enough to warrant a enciclopedic mention, specifically "Mafia" user in "Egypt" gameworld of a game which's name I cant remember but revolves around the posibility of any user submitting a law for aproval as official gamecode.Cauzilo 01:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How long will this vote last? --ZeWrestler 12:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This proposal is open for voting, as described below. Voting will close on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC). Please do not change the wording of this page. ^wS;✉ 14:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Then this vote should be closed by now. ~ Hibana