Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ace Combat characters


 * 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 keep).  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Ace Combat characters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the characters sections of the Ace Combat articles. It is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the pages have character sections, and if they do, they are useless for info. I will go back and check to make sure. Straange, this is the last page I expected to be put up for deletion. 74.196.178.8 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that kind of information would be appropriate in the game articles they come from; the point is, they should not be all clumped together here, as they do not have any notability apart from the games they come from. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your view, and believe it should be taken into consideration. I for a while had been wondering whether we could move info on characters from certain games to those game pages. I think this info could be moved to game pages, but I like to wait to have others reign in on this first. Rogue Commander (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep; by this definition, you are saying that Characters of Halo should be deleted too (it, too, has next to zero reliable sources)... and I don't think that's going to happen. Just because the Ace Combat series isn't as popular as some other game series dosen't mean that we have to delete everything but the game articles themselves.  the_ed 17  20:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a laugh, there is a Featured article on Master Chief, let alone GA's on all the other major characters, so there is massive amounts of reliable sources for that, this has ZERO. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A)That was the best I could find quickly. B) Halo is, for sure, much more popular than Ace Combat, so many, MANY more people will write about it C) So we should have no information at all about the characters? An article like this, though it is about a video game series that is not the most popular (though even close to a bust) should not be deleted. It's not like no one will ever look at this--I'm sure that many people do...is there even an Ace Combat wiki that does not have all of its info copied from here?  the_ed 17  04:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's kinda the breaks. Halo doesn't just have featured articles due to popularity with editors (though that is a BIG reason).  If we tried to FA an article which had no secondary sourcing it would go down in flames.  There is indeed an acecombat wiki.  If this article had significant coverage in independent sources, we wouldn't seek to delete it.  As it stands, it has to be improved or removed. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The major reason is its widespread popularity! I think that even slightly popular games should have a place here for the games and their components, as people will come here looking for them.  the_ed 17  17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- WilliamH (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that this article asserted no notability through any reliable sources. It would be greatly appreciated if you would read the nominating rationale and respond to that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the article currently is adequately referenced is not always key, it's the realistic potential of reliable sources, and they do indeed exist. Moreover, we can use other sources to cover out of universe reception as well.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - The topic as a whole has no specific coverage in reliable sources. The game articles all should have plot sections to cover the characters, so there is certainly no reason to pile them onto a single page. TTN (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Maybe somewhere, someone has written a review saying something like "hey this game ace combat has these 3-4 main characters...", then this list could be preserved with about 1/10th of the content. But as it stands, none of the characters are notable--this ought to set of red flags that the list is in fact NOT navigational (as it does not order topics among which the reader may navigate) but is instead a collection of objects.  Right now, the sourcing on this list (for just the parts that are supported by sources) is thin and not strictly reliable (in that cast/char lists in IMdb are borderline and one of the sources is a broken link to a japanese modeler page).  Beyond that, no independent source covers the list topic in any detail whatsover. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/delete: The list itself says very few of these characters appear in more than one game. Per TTN, the plot summary of each game would be sufficient to cover the characters in their entirety. Nifboy (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: completely fails the WP:GNG which requires significant coverage by secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Article is based on primary sources which are insufficient. "Teamxbox" does not have sufficient editorial review to be considered a reliable source. And a brief mention of a few characters at 1up is not enough qualify as significant coverage. As per WP:MOVIE, IMDB is not considered significant coverage of nearly anything. Randomran (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is completely disputed at present. It is sufficient coverage in sources by any reasonable standards.  -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not completely disputed. All proposals to get rid of it have failed. There are proposals to amend it. But until that point, you're stuck with the guideline as it is, which this article completely fails. Randomran (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article completely passes the guideline by covering characters with appearances in multiple mainstream games and covered in multiple reliable sources, i.e. regardless of the disputed nature of the fine points of the guideline, this subject is notable enough even as is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There aren't two references that meet the WP:GNG. That's the problem. Randomran (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without any doubt the combination of the coverage in the strategy guides coupled with such secondary sources as this meets the general notability guidelines. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strategy guides are authorized by the owner of the copyright in Ace Combat. That violates the "independence" requirement of the WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why we use them in conjunction with the other sources discussed above that are independent. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked into teamxbox -- that's a site that's affiliated with IGN. Assuming it's reliable, you still need one more. It's reliable secondary sources, not reliable secondary source. Randomran (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The many reviews and previews of the individual games also address the characters. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any that cover the characters in any significant way. According to the WP:GNG, trivial coverage is not enough. The WP:GNG gives an example of the difference between trivial and substantial. Find some substantial coverage. Randomran (talk) 21:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They cover them in significant enough way for our purposes. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't just say it. Prove it. Where's this significant coverage in GNG-appropriate resources? I haven't seen them, and they're not included in the current article. Randomran (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have above. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. You've produced the team xbox article, which is one source. Even if I concede that meets the GNG requirements, that's still not multiple GNG-appropriate sources. You need at least one more. Randomran (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And referenced other sources as well, i.e. reviews of the game, such as this that provide out of universe comments on characters. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's still not substantial coverage. It's a reviewer praising the storyline. It doesn't provide adequate research for ~40 characters. "Substantial" means we could actually write an article from it, rather than providing 2 sentences in the reception section. You found an article that would be useful for the "reception" section in the main Ace Combat 5 article, but nothing that would allow us to write a list of characters article that meets wikipedia's guidelines such as WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:PRIMARY and so on. Randomran (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It satisfies all those. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT. Randomran (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I already have. I can show someone a banana and say it's a banana and if they still want to refuse to believe it's a banana, then there's not much more I can say.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into one article Merge the four supporting articles into one Universe of Ace Combat article Thedarxide (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...that would be one loooong article.  the_ed 17  21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Judgesurreal777. Mere crufty trivia, as explicated above and no demonstrable notability per our First pillar, viz: WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:PERNOM and WP:ITSCRUFT. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He didn't merely rely on per nom or cruft. He said the article hasn't demonstrated notability. Which is true. It hasn't. Randomran (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is false, because characters that appear in multiple games and are covered in reliable sources are notable. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we were to cut the list down only to characters that have appeared in more than one game, we'd be left with, by my count, four characters. Nifboy (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the main character(s) warrant a mention in the article, too? (Even if they appear in only one game, say Blaze from AC5 or Mobius 1 from AC4) (I have no idea...honest question.)  the_ed 17  17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All the player-character entries look the same: A legendary ace of unknown origins/name, single-handedly defeats (insert antagonists of that game here), little other information is known. It's already covered in all the detail necessary in, for example, "the player takes on the role of an Osean Air Defense Force (OADF) trainee named Blaze," from AC5. Nifboy (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per the_ed17. Mathmo Talk 05:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability via significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. The TeamXbox link is a rehash of the plot - there's no critical coverage. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 18:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews of the game provide the critical coverage. For example, "The only kind of character development you’re going to get on Talisman is how you perform in missions, and this setup actually works."  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sufficient out-world notability is demonstrated. DigitalC (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Request fulfilled. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's one source of questionable significance. You need at least two sources, let alone some out-of-universe critical coverage. Randomran (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See my response to Sephiroth above. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The problem for me with this article is that I can't believe there are - is it 62? - notable or prominent characters! As it stands I think this is WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed. I would also support merging the articles together into what hopefully would become a concise Universe of Ace Combat article (although I have big problems with the level of detail in the Militaries of Ace Combat). Jll (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:FANCRUFT --T-rex 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many people who play or see an ad for these games will come here looking for this...I don't think that it only applies to "only to a small population of enthusiastic fans".  the_ed 17  23:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they will be looking for Ace Combat. Furthermore if they really are looking for this information, it is ok if they don't find it. --T-rex 00:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be okay if they didn't find it, as it is not life or death. =) I guess that they probably wouldn't be looking specifically for this, at least to start. But what if they got curious after looking at the Ace Combat article or one of the game's article's..where else would they be able to find stuff such as this?  the_ed 17  00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but hopefully not on wikipedia --T-rex 01:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, why not? If it applies to more than just "a small population of enthusiastic fans", why not have it on Wikipedia?  the_ed 17  01:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to say that, no it does not apply to more than just a small population of enthusiastic fans. --T-rex 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to mirror the "Sonic Problem". Listen guys, I will just split the article and put all the characters in their associated gaming articles. Does that sound good to you?Rogue Commander (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not call things cruft. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:The page that you linked is "...an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may follow it or not, at your discretion." It is not a wikipedia policy or guideline. DigitalC (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is fine given that it is in reply to another essay given as the sole basis for deletion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Ned Scott 21:58, 20 July 2008 (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.