Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Killer7 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  (non-admin closure). Nomination withdrawn. Another reason why AfD should be "articles for discussion" and not "deletion." MuZemike ( talk ) 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Killer7 characters

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

recently replaced all content on this page with a redirect to Killer7 without anything resembling a discussion prior. I honestly have no opinion on the fate of this content, but replacing a whole page with a redirect is akin to a unilateral deletion. I brought it here for the sake of process and have no opinion myself. JuJube (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- Game guide. --Fred McGarry (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect The plot section and the voice actor section of the game article already seem to fullfill the same purpose without giving so much UNDUE weight on GAMEGUIDE information. – sgeureka t•c 10:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Transwiki the bulk of the list to a wiki (if not such already); however, there should be a single paragraph that can summarize the main characters in the game quickly (including the 7 personas, as to give a flavor how each appears in game). The list, however, is way too much details for a game with a single release for WP. --M ASEM  13:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Obligatory process creep is evil; redirects should be treated like WP:PROD, don't bother bringing it here unless there's an objection. Nifboy (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought other involved editors might object; apparently I was wrong. JuJube (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no evidence that this list is notable in itself, or that any of the characters in it are notable, jointly or individually. Clearly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Basically this list is a content fork from the article Killer7, into which plot summary with an over reliance on an in universe persective has been dumped. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Gavin Collins (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a game guide.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete game guide, and unsourced. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge in the major characters. There's plenty of room. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, I've merged what I think is appropriate for the characters into the Killer7 article. --M ASEM 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Restore if needed Its hard to know what to do here, since almost every step has been wrong. The original action or replacing with redirects without prior discussion is an overbold use of BRD. The appropriate course is to discuss first, and then merge/redirect after consensus has been obtained. But, if it should be redirected without consensus, the appropriate step is to revert, per the second part of BRD, and then discuss until consensus has been obtained.  If one see it done, and has no opinion t one way or another, there's no basis to assume it's not approved of--at most one might want to place a note on the talk page and move on to things one does care about. But   the idea that redirects are prods is absurd; there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline to that effect. How to deal with contested redirects is an open issue--the last week here has not clarified how to deal with them, though it certainly has clarified that there is a problem.  Given that we have the situation, what Masem has done is probably reasonable, and if anyone wants to restore further material, they are also welcome, and it can then be discussed on the talk page. Whether this should then be split out again can then be discussed, when we see what the material amounts to. (I would have dealt with this differently than Masem, but I'm not going to disturb what might be an acceptable alternative.)  My view is comment that those who take without discussion large scale actions that they must reasonably know are likely to be controversial are not contributing to Wikipedia in a useful way,  and this, if tolerated, will continue to lead to situations like the present one.  DGG (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, even if this list is kept, per WP:SS a summary of such supporting lists should be kept as part of the main article, enough that the reader doesn't have to refer to it to get the content of the main article but there for those that need it.  --M ASEM  08:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Character list from award-winning game. Generally that's the right thing to do per WP:SPINOUT and general precedent. Hobit (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Close as a protest nomination. Redirection isn't deletion. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, redirection is not a reason for deletion. If you brought every article to AFD that TTN has turned into a redirect, you'd have tens of thousands of AFDs. The nominator obviously does not understand "the process" and should read WP:AFD (and WP:BEFORE in particular) before making any more similar nominations. --Pixelface (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination I'm going to withdraw this nomination because I really don't care about the fate of this article and am not trying to get it deleted. If TTN wants this article deleted, he should nominate it for deletion and not simply replace it with a redirect without any sort of procedural fair warning. JuJube (talk) 04:42, 9 October 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.