Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Quest VIII 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   Delete,  Nakon  22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Dragon Quest VIII characters

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the character and plot sections of Dragon Quest VIII; it is therefore duplicative and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Kariteh (talk) 17:18, June 10, 2008 (UTC)

* Delete: Not notable because there are no reliable independent sources that offer significant coverage of these characters. Spinouts still need to assert notability, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and the first plank of the video game guidelines on inappropriate content. "Let's compromise" can't work because there's no such thing as half-way notability. Either this is notable or it isn't. Searches reveal that it's not. If someone believes otherwise, they should produce that evidence. Randomran (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete These characters only appeared in one episode, and the article fails WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE. Might be transwikied to a Dragon Quest wikia if such wikia exists. Kariteh (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Completely non-notable. Doubtful sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game and this list is an extension of that notable article. The characters are referenced in the game itself and in the guides that came out for the game. --Pinkkeith (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dragon Quest VIII is a notable game, but notability is not inherited. This list of characters should establish its own notability per WP:N and WP:VGSCOPE, but it currently doesn't and hasn't shown any sign of possible improvement for two years. Per WP:V, establishing notability is done through the usage of independent sources, not the game itself or guides published by the game's company (primary sources). Kariteh (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't confuse WP:SPINOUT with WP:ITSA. This in an extension of the article due to size limits. It's not a category of a certain subject per se. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not confusing the two. The WikiProject Video games has more specific guidelines than the general ones. As I said above, the article fails WP:VGSCOPE: "A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable.", "A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed." Information such as in-universe biography and game-guide details like "Yangus is the party's physical tank, with the highest HP, defence, and physical attack strength" are excessive and should not be present. If these details are cut from the article, it becomes short enough (and duplicative) to not warrant a page separated from the main game article; it would thus need to establish its own notability if it were to remain separate. Since it doesn't and cannot, I believe it should be deleted/redirected. Kariteh (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no claim of notability. not a how-to but bordering on being a game guide --T-rex 23:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but requires major cleanup, possibility moving the main characters section from the main DQ8 page to here (replacing the content presently), and making sure to treat the characters out-of-universe and avoiding plot repetition as much as possible. A list of characters from a game (without notability) is a reasonable supporting article to avoid main article SIZE problems, but it needs to avoid excessive rambling and plot reiteration as this one presently does, as well as issues with overuse of images.  --M ASEM  14:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (discriminate, verifiable, encyclopedic, and notable list). Even if it is duplicatd elsewhere, then we can merge and redirect without deletion in the worst case scenario.  Sufficient editor efforts and reader interest as well.  Consistent per our First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia or almanac on characters.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The first pillar of Wikipedia is a very generic statement; it and WP:LIST do not trump specific guidelines such as WP:VGSCOPE. Verifiability does not trump notability either. Kariteh (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles are consistent with our policies, however, which trump the guidelines. The article actually passes WP:VGSCOPE because lists of characters are necessary and notable.  There is no consensus that such articles do not meet our guidelines and more people (those creating and editing these articles plus those arguing to keep in the AfDs) actually agree that such articles are suitable for Wikipedia.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not consistent with the policies as it fails to establish notability. Separate lists of characters are not "necessary" when the encyclopedic information can fit in the main game article. Kariteh (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is consistent with the policies as it sucessfully establishes notability. Even if the information could fit in the main game article, the article is still a legitimate search term and would be merged and redirected without deletion.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, you haven't actually quoted any policy on this page. If you're thinking about Wikipedia:Five pillars, this is a general summary that appears not to be pertinent here because there are more specific guidelines that apply: WP:VGSCOPE and WP:N. The article has consistently remained unreferenced since its creation two years ago. One could argue that the game is an implicit source, but it's not a secondary source independent from the subject. The article needs secondary sources that treat the subject extensively, and your Google search below shows only tangential mentioning of the word "characters" in pages dealing with Dragon Quest VIII; it's not enough. Kariteh (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I have. The article falls within our scope of video game coverage and meets our notability guidelines.  If you are concerned about referencing, SOFIXIT.  Don't just stop at Google; look at magazines that cover the characters as well.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Clean up with a chainsaw and merge to Dragon Quest VIII. Generally, if you find a bad character list article that isn't hopeless gibberish or "Background characters #1-37", that's going to be your best bet. Both articles are in pretty dire condition anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Generally, this sort of article is the compromise way to go to avoid the clutter of individual articles. when I see them I think there's a chance that people are trying to edit and organize the material in a reasonable manner. DGG (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another compromise way to avoid the clutter of individual articles is to cover them in a single article on the game when independent, reliable sources covering more-specific aspects of that game do not exist. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * in practice, such extensive merges either give cumbersome articles, or end up in deleting content. But the question of whether to merge this is for the article talk page, not here--therefore it probably wouldnt have been brought here to afd at all, unless the intent was in fact to remove the content. DGG (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They end up deleting excessive plot summary. This is necessary and valuable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. searches shows that they can be verified.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read that link past the title? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then surely you read this: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is a notable topic, however. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) I never said this article was cruft. This isn't the first time you insisted I said something that I didn't, and I'm asking you politely to stop misrepresenting my position and read the actual guideline I'm citing. (2) If you're going to say that this is a notable topic, you're gonna have to show how this complies with guidelines. The lack of sources is strong evidence that this isn't notable. Do you have evidence otherwise? Randomran (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This edit does have the word "cruft" in it. I and others have already offered strong reasons as to why this article is notable above.  Sicnerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop misrepresenting my position and read the first plank of the video game guidelines on inappropriate content. Randomran (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is nothing more than Cruftcruft. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not allowed to ignore a guideline simply because you don't like it, let alone use an opinion essay against it. The guideline states: "Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable." And if you don't like that guideline, then you should read the general notability guideline and the guideline against unnecessary splits which form the basis for this guideline. Simply calling a bunch of guideline concerns "cruftcruft" is neither productive nor civil. It ignores the actual substance of these guidelines and prevents a real understanding from being established. Randomran (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am per Ignore all rules, especially when it lacks actual community support. Calling articles created and edited in good faith "gamecruft" is neither productive nor civil and prevents a real understanding from being established.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So...where's the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at published reviews that mention the characters. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are none that meet the notability guideline. (quote: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.) If you have evidence otherwise, it would be far more productive than simply dismissing guidelines you don't like as "cruftcruft". Randomran (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The consensus lacking guidelines allow for exceptions as does Wikipedia in general. Deleting this article does not benefit our proeject.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The general notability guideline does have consensus, and proposals to get rid of it have been rejected. You haven't demonstrated why this particular article should be exempted when so many other non-notable articles have been deleted for failure to comply with the guidelines. And citing a statement from someone that "I don't listen to guidelines written by deletionists" can only be taken as agreement. An unwillingness to comply with guidelines as central as notability is disruptive and toxic to the wikipedia community. If you don't like the existing consensus, then develop a new consensus to change it. Randomran (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It lacks community support beyond just that one quote. This like so many other notable articles that should not have been deleted complies with what opinion of the community of editors who created, worked on, and defended here.  Unwillingess to help improve the article in question and cling to a narrow and limited interpretation of a suggested guideline is disruptive and toxic to the wikipedia community.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Enforcing guidelines is not toxic or disruptive. Saying that you are against a guideline is not interpretation: it's plain disruptive. Randomran (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Enforcing" a limited interpretation as a guideline without helping to improve the article in question and dismissing those you disagree with by attacking them rather than their arguments is disruptive. Trying to improve the article in question is productive.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Offer an alternative interpretation of the notability guideline that doesn't involve dismissing it. Otherwise, please save everyone a lot of time in the future by simply saying "articles that don't comply with the GNG should be allowed to exist" and we'll leave it at that. Randomran (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You would save us time by helping to improve the articles in question, especially ones like this that actually are referenced and that actually do contain assertions of notability and out of universe content. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I spend plenty of time improving wikipedia. The problem with this article is that the references do not assert notability. IMDB is considered trivial coverage, as seen in Notability (films). The other two references offer trivial mentions of character names. I appreciate your effort, but I myself looked for references and could not find more than trivial coverage of these characters. Randomran (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are more than just three references and I am still in the process of adding more. The other references describe particular aspects of the characters and not their notability, i.e. uniqueness compared to other RPGs and the fact that they are depicted by a major artist.  And again, I was able to do that in but minutes, i.e. just getting the ball rolling here.  Plus, not all video game characters are made into toys:, , , etc.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Toys are primary sources, and not independent of the subject (e.g.: they are licenced and authorized by the game's creator/publisher/owner). But if you can find those other independent, secondary sources that offer significant coverage for these characters, I will graciously change my vote. No one on wikipedia is infallible. Randomran (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Toys establish notability as of the milllions of video game characters only some have actually been made into action figures. Toys also mean that video game guidelines cannot solely be used to cover this article as the subject of the article are not only video game characters, but toy characters as well.  Sources that discuss the toys just as those that reference the characters as they appear in the game are numerous and significant enough to justify inclusion on Wikipedia.  The article is still a work in progress, but it is coming along quite well now and we must consider Potential, not just current state and Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Toys are still primary, non-independent sources, and the GNG still applies. I haven't seen much out there on the way of toys, but there is a little bit of momentum on this article. As an aside, have you seen the proposed guideline WP:POSTPONE? I think it's a good idea in principle, if we can find a way to iron out a consensus on the details. Randomran (talk) 04:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the characters are covered in reliable primary sources (a published strategy guide of the game) and reliable secondary sources (reviews that specifically discuss the characters and toys in detail) and so they meet any reasonable person's notability guidelines. I'll check out the postpone link momentarily.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep merchandising is a good indicator of notability. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not according to the general notability guideline. Please don't just make guidelines up. Randomran (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, a valid subarticle for comprehensive coverage beyond what is appropriate in the main article. As long as there are references demonstrating significant external attention given to some of these characters, I see no problem. Everyking (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete 50 KB of plot summary and game guide material. Even ignoring notability, this does not belong on Wikipedia.  --Phirazo 18:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As well as out of universe comments on who did the art, who voices the characters, and the fact that the characters were made into toys, which is why this article belongs on Wikipedia. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Toys can't assert notability because they are primary sources, and they're not independent of the subject: they are authorized by the subject's creators. IMDB does not assert notability either. Whether or not there is useful information in this article is irrelevant. Useful but non-compliant articles are deleted all the time. Randomran (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cast and crew credits and merchandising belong in the main article. A paragraph about action figures does not justify 50 KB of plot summary.  --Phirazo 04:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Though Le Grand Roi has done some modifications to decruft the article and standardize it, there is still no assertion of notability, or any proof that the article has potential to grow from what it is. This information should be in the main article, and does not warrant its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging my efforts, but just as a note, because you nominated the article, I'm not sure if the delete here looks like a double "I know it's not a" vote? Also, the notability is that these are some of only a handful of video game characters that have also been made into toys.  Plus, if you think the information can exist elsewhere, then even in a worst case scenario we would merge and redirect without deletion.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please strike your vote. You don't get to have your opinion counted twice. Everyking (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed :) If the toys are an assertion of notability, then it would be better to bulk up the main article than stretch it into this one as well. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Excessively in-universe; plot, game stat discussion, original research. The tiny amount of out-of-universe context (The action figure; the voice actors) can be included in the main article instead. Marasmusine (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case then you're saying we would merge and redirect without deletion per Merge and delete. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lists of game characters from a single game should only be split in notability can be established. Otherwise, all relevant characters should be able to fit under the main article. In this case, if you actually remove the extensive plot from any of the main characters, you are left the few sentences that would fit within a decent "Characters" section. TTN (talk) 12:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability has been established in this case, which is why this particular list is acceptable. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Toys are primary sources, let alone non-independent sources and can't establish notability. Neither can IMDB. Randomran (talk) 18:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why the article cites indepdent sources that comment on the toys and that sestablish notability. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of which are reliable. One of them isn't even a review, but a simple image/press release advertising how to buy the figurine. Randomran (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of which are sufficiently reliable by any reasonable standard. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no... --T-rex 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lack of real word significance regarding these characters. Article is virtually all original research unless my eye's mistake me, and if it's not it's unsourced. The burden of evidence lies with the editors wishing to retain the information, if this is not to be deleted it should be sourced. Seven days have passed since this debate began and the article is not sourced, it is safe to assume it will never be. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Who are you? Kariteh (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Judge, TTN and Marasmusin have nailed the relevant issues here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure game guide material with no evidence nor even assertion of real-world notability, see consensus from e.g. Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination). --Stormie (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It can't be a game guide when it also covers toys that exist in the real world, plus other character AfDs have closed as keep or no consensus. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 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! 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - none of the reviews I'm looking at offer critical coverage on the characters (indeed, the grand majority dismiss the plot as simply bad in about two sentences and move on), and as it stands, it's undue weight on a part of the series that can be adequately described in the main article. Asserts no notability to meet the provisions at WP:AVOIDSPLIT and violates WP:GAMECRUFT as it currently is. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 08:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews of the toys offer critical coverage of the characters. Also, please note Cruftcruft.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, reviews of the toy offer reviews of the toy, not the character, and only one character at that. Also, take your anti-cruft essays elsewhere. Trying to argue against the term "cruft" when WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline is a red herring and simply irrelevant. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviews of toys offer out of universe context of characters made into toys. I could see someone making a reasonable case to merge and redirect that information into another article, but I can't see deletion as justifiable here, especially when the consensus of other AfDs was to merge the characters into the list.  So, we have many more times the editors who argued then to keep or merge than claim they want it deleted here coupled with those who have created and worked on the now redirected articles and this list, plus the thousands of hits they get a month.  Thus, it would not be "right" for a five day AfD to somehow legitimately trump what these editors and readers want, especially when the article is undergoing a significant revision.  I still haven't gone through my back issues of game magazines at my parents' house yet, so it's not unreasonable that in the coming days or weeks I won't be able to improve it even further.  It'd be one thing if I was only arguing here, but I obviously am also putting forth the effort to improve the article in question as well.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic even in its current version.  Hi DrNick ! 12:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Article has been revised to encyclopedic standards 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! 05:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable because there are no reliable independent sources that offer significant coverage of these characters. Spinouts still need to assert notability, as per WP:AVOIDSPLIT and the first plank of the video game guidelines on inappropriate content. "Let's compromise" can't work because there's no such thing as half-way notability. Either this is notable or it isn't. Efforts to assert notability have come up short. In some cases, the article uses unreliable sources such as IMDB or a promotional press release with an online toy catalog. In other cases, the article relies on a needle in a haystack mention of one or two character names that does not meet the WP:GNG definition of "significant coverage". Randomran (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though they do have coverage in reliable secondary sources and the article is undergoing a significant revision? What about postponing while the revising process continues (I haven't exhausted all likely source search places yet)?  They are notable because only so many of the millions of video game characters have also been made into toys.  Thus, gameWPITSCRUFT is not sufficient here.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I would be so presumptuous as to tell you to stop doing something you're clearly enjoying, but I think your efforts would be better spent by referencing Dragon Quest VIII with independent secondary sources. From what I've seen about how this subject is covered, there's no notability for the characters themselves. I have a hard time believing otherwise without some real evidence. Randomran (talk) 00:05, 20 June 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.