Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jade Empire 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, if you want to gain consensus to merge this article, start a merge discussion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Jade Empire characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fancruft. Excessively detailed list of character descriptions, without references or third-party sources. Detail level makes article approach game guide status. At best, this information should be a 10 line table in Jade Empire. Kww (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom into Jade Empire as some sort of table Doc Strange (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Jade Empire, it's terribly unsourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or whatever necessary. There is not reason for this to exist currently. TTN (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 12:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Extremely weak merge, because the massive urge to delete or merge fictional characters has to stop somewhere and I believe "List of (X) characters" is currently the best compromise we have. I'm just saying that if this was "List of Final Fantasy XLVII characters" no one would bring this to AfD. "*grumble* *grumble* undue weight" and all that. In this case, I'm sure there's some solution and perhaps some trimming could be done. I'm just not 100% convinced of the merge idea. It sure as heck doesn't need to be deleted and sure as heck doesn't need "third-party sources" (game itself is enough). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, its too big for a merge. JE is quite a well known, notable game and I'm sure there are a few other well known games that have mutiple pages here. IIRC there's even a few that have a page per main character.--Him and a dog 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Excessive detail "approaching game guide status" is a reason for cleaning up, not deleting. So is more explicit sourcing (fictional entities always have the work itself as an implicit primary source). This is exactly the sort of WP:SS breaking out of information that WP:FICT encourages. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only summary style character list splits would be for things long running series and the like. Single games will almost never require them. TTN (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN, where did you get that idea from? On what basis of policy? DGG (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the characters can be covered within prose, there is no need for a list. TTN (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but after reading that backwards and forwards, I'm not making sense of that statement. WP:SS applies to prose as well as list subarticles. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the characters can be covered within the prose of the character section, plot section, and possibly the settings section of the main article, there is no need for a list. That is currently the case, and the first two sections could even use a good trim. TTN (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A "list of characters" article for a single video game is acceptable, for example the featured article Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. The information is sourced from the vidoe game itself, which is acceptable per WP:PSTS. Any excessive detail can be fixed through editing. It is better to have the all the characters on a single page, rather than individual articles for each character. Bláthnaid  19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to read over that article again. Some of the information comes from the games, while some comes from reliable sources. That is one of the very few times a single game requires a character list. If you can find some of the same kind of creation and reception information, this will be one also. TTN (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant that the information in the Jade Empire article is sourced from primary sources, and is acceptable as such. "Lists of characters" articles are acceptable per WP:SS. Bláthnaid  20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, articles need to have third party sources in order to exist (see WP:V). For summary style lists, it has to be impossible to cover the characters within the main article. There are two full sections for coverage of the characters, so there is currently no reason for a split. And no, just because people were able to type this much detail about the characters does not mean that the article would be too long. TTN (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is some independent information about the characters here. Some of the characters are discussed in a review here. One of the characters, Dawn Star, is mentioned here as an example of a good female character. The Google News hits also show more articles with information about this one character, and a GameSpot gameguide which would source a lot of information in the article. These sources need subscriptions to be accessed, but they show that this article can be verified from independent sources. This meets WP:V. Bláthnaid  16:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep with other character lists. Sesshomaru's comment to merge makes absolutely no sense. If it's terribly unsourced, what difference would it make to merge it? Also, Kww does not seem to know what a game guide is. This list is clearly not a game guide. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per wwwwolf. Combination articles for slightly notable characters are such an obvious way to do it, that I continue to be surprised anyone would want to delete them. I don't hold with IAR when not necessary, and it's not necessary here either--the appropriate subdivision of content on a notable subject is already well provided for. (If the list & main article are short, it makes sense to combine the two, but there are still good technical reasons against long articles when avoidable) By now I interpret the opposition to such articles as  a dislike for articles on these subjects, and a desire to reduce them as far as possible. that's AGF, for everyone has their right to their own view of what WP should be. Myself, and I think most of us, I think it should be a  contemporary encyclopedia, comprehending the popular and the scholarly, arranged to facilitate use, not by theoretical schemes of notability. We should not let ourselves be imposed on. DGG (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, on my part, it's a desire to see reliable sources, completely independent of the creator, for everything in the encyclopedia. That tends to be more of a problem with the fiction and game articles.Kww (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * there seems to be general consensus that noncontroversial description of a book or film can be taken directly from that book or film, just as bio or corporate information that is non controversial can be taken from an official web site. sothey are RSs for he purpose, too. DGG (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough ... it's a logical derivation of WP:SELFPUB. But you can't base an entire article on such sources, which is what this one is. Since there are no other sources, and you can't base the entire article on self-published sources, the article can't be kept.Kww (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge prefered, since the parent article won't be that big once some of the plot there is trimmed/ reworded. However, I can't say I feel strongly about it, as long as the list article does trim a lot of the fat. -- Ned Scott 01:27, 26 January 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.