Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unreal 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. keep ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Unreal characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources, fails WP:N, WP:V. The Unreal series is notable, but that doesn't mean its characters are. Λeternus (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a WP:SPLIT from Unreal (series), which at present just has a link to this list. So at most this is getting merged, not deleted, though it's standard practice to keep such separate lists when they are too long to fit in the parent article. It's up to editors on this topic to decide how practical that is. Finally, it's nonsensical to claim that any information about the characters from a notable video game series is unverifiable; does the nominator think this list is a hoax? One could generate at least a bare bones yet accurate list just from playing the game(s), even without consulting any of the product manuals or third-party game guides that undoubtedly exist. I also can't even imagine how a video game series could be notable without any of the requisite secondary sources (such as critical reviews) discussing its characters at all. So maybe "fails...WP:V" was just a typo and the nominator meant something else. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This level of detail on fictional/game characters borders on copyright violation. The game paid good money to artists to create them.  Do we have the right to republish their work for our own entertainment? BayShrimp (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: In this particular instance, I highly doubt the company is adverse to the free advertizing. Pax 09:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete or maybe Unsplit: By no means is detail in an encyclopedia copyright infringement for a video game unless the words themselves were taken straight from text in/about the game. However, there's only one source, and that's a wiki about the game, and I haven't been able to find anything worth mentioning about the characters past that. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC) After looking over 's sources, I'm changing my !vote to Keep. While the article could use some cleanup, there's plenty of sources that I didn't find, and that was the basis for my deletion !vote. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm inclined to say this is not notable, but I found several webpages that may or may not constitute sufficient sourcing, and I'd appreciate if someone could have a look:          . Hakken (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1-6 look fine, the GameSpot review is iffy (seems to be user-created), 8 and 9 are good, TV Tropes isn't the most reliable source around. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 12:13, 30 January 2015 (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.