Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital character


 * 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 merge to Character animation.  Sandstein  11:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Digital character

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This one's edited at least two dozen times in over 11 years. I don't see a reason to keep an article about a type of character depending on their medium (see "static character" section), especially I can't locate similar standalone articles about characters in other formats. Then the article goes into character depth which has to do nothing with character format. Perhaps it should merge into character animation? TheGGoose (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems like something that would be encyclopedic, but looking for refs I was able to find only one definition: ("Digital Character Development", Rob O'Neill); the book is not searchable online outside scribid. As scribid is not free, I can't even fully verify it anyway. Unless we can produce sources, I support the merge to Character animation as proposed by the op. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep-This topic is definitely encyclopedic although I had trouble finding accessible books to use as sources. I did find one reference related to 'how-to' create one of these digital characters and inserted it into the article. Also, it is no longer an orphan since I was able to link it to another article. This topic has the potential of becoming valuable information if someone with access to the references were to edit it. Isn't there a video gaming project that would be interested in this? Isn't wikipedia bursting at the seams with articles about video gaming? This article should be a MAJOR article since it is the root all video games.  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge with Character animation. It's not that new... I saw it being done in labs fifteen years ago. As Bfpage says, it is the core of computer-based animation. I think someone just overlooked this page. New Media Theorist (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge as per New Media Theorist. Not notable enough to stand alone.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  18:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep the lack of accessible electronic sources is not an impediment. Use you libraries!  There is plenty written on topic.  I have tagged the article as "refimprove". --Bejnar (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  14:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge the Information in relation to the topic is sparse and repetitive of other Wikipedia pages I see little of value to merge into other articles but there is no point in keeping a page that is mostly point form summaries of other summaries. Andrdema (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.