Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mother 3 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, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Mother 3 characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of the plot and characters sections of the Mother 3 game and is thus duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It does not assert notability, and it doesn't require coverage past the main article. TTN (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Um. Except the characters aren't covered in the main article. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They're covered in the plot section, which I guess could be trimmed and split into a characters section. TTN (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And that's the point, no reliable sources, no article, thats what policy clearly says. However, you would be surprised how much of this could be put into the main article in a condensed form, because even though there is a large plot section, there is not yet a dedicated character section. If you want, borrow some of this and distill it for the main article, but your right it wont all fit. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article lacks sources and appears to fail WP:NOT. The Mother 3 article does NOT include this information, but the addition of this information would detract from it.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Individual MOTHER3 character bios were already deleted/merged into this article once before; deleting anything else would be overkill, and considering the number and the importance of the characters in relation to the plot, the main MOTHER3 article would suffer as well. In addition, trying to merge the important characters into the main article would make it too long.   Reference-wise, you're not going to find a whole lot in relation to this article, especially considering that most "reliable sources" on the internet don't have the focus or translation skills necessary to interpret the plot. (unless we start pointing to foreign language pages as sources); you'd be hard-pressed to find any more reliable sources. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's no "reliable sources", then the MOTHER3 article should not exist at all, considering that most of the references in the MOTHER3 article do not specifically refer to the story, and the ones that would are not in English. You can't have it both ways.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:NOT/WP:GAMECRUFT. --Jack Merridew 11:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is established that the game is notable. Therefor Wikipedia can have an article on the game. Wikipedia is not paper and thus can afford to have a detailed article on the game. Wikipedia is not a game-guide and thus should stop short of providing complete game statistics and walkthrus. Standing consensus until recently has been that lists of characters were within the bounds of acceptable detail and that if such lists made the main article too long they should be split out to a separate list page. I see no indication that this consensus has changed. This information would be 'unassailable' if it were included in the main article. Deleting it as a sub-article is illogical and serves little purpose except to discourage good article design... people should then lump everything together into one long article rather than organizing it into logical sub-pages. --CBD 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It has done no such thing, as there are no references from reliable sources, and without those it will never be a "Good Article". And without that, there is no demonstrated need for a subarticle. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of reliable sources is only a deletion reason if it is believed that reliable sources could never be found. Everything in this article could obviously be reliably sourced to the game itself. The usual argument then is that the game is not an independent source, but that's IMO a spurious argument given that it only seems to be applied as a mask for 'IDONTLIKEIT'. Take a gander at the ISO 3166-1 featured list... entirely sourced to the ISO. Every bit as lacking in independent sources as this article and all the others on fictional topics nominated for deletion. Indeed, there are dozens of featured lists with the same sort of sourcing. It is apparently ok (even 'featurable') for every topic except fiction. --CBD 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum to argue about policy, if you interested in doing that, please continue at WP:FICTION talk page. And yes, the whole reason I am nominating these articles, and the vast majority of which have been deleted, because I believe there to be no references to be found because they don't exist. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because you think that the article should not exist (especially when it's been trimmed so many times already for various inane reasons) does not mean you wantonly suggest articles for deletion without at least bringing it up on the respective article's talk page and say "We need more sources", or not try to find some yourself. Random article destruction doth not a good encyclopedia make.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutCheeseBar (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * PeanutCheeseBar, either provide some references or your just talking to no purpose. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That still does not address why you could not have started a discussion about it, or sought to improve the article. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 00:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I believe that none will be found. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're making an assumption though, and you're not trying to make improvements before salting what's already been butchered before. Please try harder next time.  PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Mother 3 Edward321 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per CBD. The information is within the bounds of typical game coverage.  And it just makes the information more easily organized. matt91486 (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Mother 3User:Ri0026 I always thought it was kind of silly that it had it's own page when it'd fit much easier into the bounds of the core Mother 3 site. Don't delete it though, the characters are an integral part of Mother 3's appeal.
 * Which is a problem as Wikipedia is not a gameguide!! There needs to be actual sourcing of this material and relevance outside of just the game to have its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This list is simply not good enough for Wikipedia. Not many people are interested in computer role-playing game like Mother 3. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as a separate article, as there are obviously people out there -- both Wikipedians and students doing research who will want this article. The Mother 3 article is a bit long already, and has NO section for the characters, just a link.  I'll start a mini-section, just in case the consensus becomes to merge. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Moijd. Delete away! Bearian (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2007 (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.