Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alien 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn as we know that DarthBotto has shown willingness to take up with the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

List of Alien characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is redundant. It has been in existence for 10 years, has 2 references after being tagged for 8 years and suffering from in-universe problems tagged 6 years ago. It offers no information that is not or could not be covered in the relevant articles. If necessary the cast list table can be merged into the central Alien series article, but the rest of the article is in-universe plot and all of it is unsourced. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  09:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: I only recently came across this article and have thus far worked to include missing content. This article has significant notability and context, as it serves as a character list for a prominent franchise. It definitely deserves to stay, but I agree that it requires significant cleanup and referencing, which I will be taking up. So, I say we should dismiss this AfD and I'll look to improve the quality of the article and add the references, which most certainly can be found like the boat load, so it's not just pure in-universe jargon, as Darkwarriorblake's implying. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone of note from this series has their own article, like Ripley and the Alien. Everyone else is relevant to their own film article, existing is not an excuse for a list. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Existing isn't an excuse, but the fact remains that we're dealing with one of the most prominent science fiction franchises of all time, which does warrant companion articles, such as one detailing characters. Either you can agree with this perspective, or you could apply your reasoning across the wiki and nominate for deletion List of Jurassic Park characters, as well as every article in this category. With the state of things, there simply is not just enough cause to delete this specific article. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Because I'm not aware of those articles and have not the time to nominate them, isn't an argument for "why bother getting rid of one". And as I said, there are already companion articles, for the alien and its varians, and significant characters like Ripley and Bishop. The rest of the character entries are regurgitating plot, there's no value you can add to them that isn't already present in the relevant film articles, so then you're just repeating information. Your additions to the article alone in just the last few weeks are huge amounts of just repeating plot, such as Shaw's section, so why would there be any indication that you will elevate this article beyond what it is right now? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed in your hostile tone, Darkwarriorblake; there have been numerous times in the past that we've constructively worked together and that I actually defended you against users who criticized and called for blocks on you. To answer your question, I first needed to incorporate the materials from the Prometheus article, which was a sizable undertaking. I was about to start referencing this article and clean up the redundancies when I saw you nominated it for deletion. As I stated earlier, this is a very prominent franchise with plenty of resources available out there, which you have not yet addressed in the defense of your AfD. If you read Deletion policy, there really isn't any applicable reason for this article to be deleted. Your basis is that there aren't reliable resources out there? Simply because I haven't conducted a cleanup of the article does not mean that, as the priority is to prevent it from being needlessly deleted. You can do a simple Google search for most any element in the article and you'll see results. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My issue is not lack of sources, it's that I don't see what this article does or can do, that the main character and film articles do not already do. And there was no tone implied, so i apologise. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's all good about you and I, man. I added a courtesy break beneath for a new angle I have. Let me know what you think, please! ;) D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: Per DarthBotto and the list just needs some improvements. Alien: Covenant ‎ is filming now, which will also feature some new Alien characters and we have to put those all characters somewhere together. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do we have to put all these characters somewhere together? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please re-consider the word "we". If you don't wish to be part of it, then relax and let others do it --which they've done-- and don't interfere. --AVM (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please re-consider your tone. It's disgusting and immature. And they haven't "done" it, that's the point. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: This article serves as a guide to those fictional species depicted in this very significant franchise. The fact that some issues haven't been taken care of is no reason for deletion; whoever proposed such harsh measure ought to help by taking care of those issues, instead of plotting against the article. For sure, it took the effort of several editors to build, and definitely has a certain degree of merit and usefulness, while there are hundreds of other articles out here in Wikipedia that have either lesser or almost none, thus, I disagree about it being 'redundant'. --AVM (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Courtesy break - After examining this list and examining the character list on Featured lists, I definitely can agree that this article needs some serious refocusing. So far, its emphasis is upon the plot elements, when it should have a great deal of focus upon the writing and design of the individual characters, one-by-one. Therefore, I believe we should essentially rewrite each and every character section to include the necessary elements for character lists. Should this page be deleted? Absolutely not; its subject matter is very notable, prominent and can be sourced, which, to Darkwarriorblake's credit, I should have taken care of when I started editing in the Prometheus section recently. But regardless, the subject matter remains out of the bounds of deletion, though emphasis should be drawn far beyond the plot. What do you guys think? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to get this done (remember, this page has been tagged for 6 years in some cases), then I am happy to withdraw the deletion request. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd definitely be willing to take this up as my main focus for Wikipedia until it's up to par. You know, I only watched the movies in the Alien franchise two years ago and started editing related articles last fall. I've been systematically approaching the articles and retrofitting them to be more in-line with the franchise, as they have generally been a discombobulating mess, mixing together with Predator and AvP, then treating Prometheus like a separate entity... Ugh. I came across this page like, oh, I don't know, a month or so ago? It's a hefty task, but I think it's a page with necessary subject matter, so it deserves better than the shitty state it's in. Six years? Too long, indeed. Let's make this article chime. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 03:51, 18 April 2016 (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.