Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female video game characters by role


 * 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. There is a pretty clear consensus here from users who expressed an opinion that the article as existing is redundant to a category and relevant guidelines on this. There is a long discussion about ways in which the article could be re-purposed, although obviously I cannot take that into account as closer; however feel free to ask me to userfy the article if you believe the material could be used in some way. Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

List of female video game characters by role

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An incomplete list that is unnecessary due to Category:Female characters in video games. Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:SALAT as too broad. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * SALAT is a reason to split or limit the scope of lists, not to delete them. Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections, try to limit the scope in some way...by sectioning the general page under categories, etc. Diego (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - An expansive list, and while I appreciate that female characters are probably disproportionately a minority in video games, even with that fact, the list size is expansive and better handled by the category. Shadowjams (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and Clarityfiend. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cyan Gardevoir and Clarityfiend's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - just noting for the record that I did create that article with the summary "creating article from misplaced section at Portrayal of women in video games". I do not oppose its deletion as long as that does not result in a merge-back. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  06:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Question to the nominator How is a reader looking for female characters supposed to find Wikipedia's coverage of characters such as: Yorda from Ico, Amaterasu from Ōkami, Faith Connors from Mirror's Edge, Galatea from the eponymous interactive fiction, or any other character that is not independently notable, but nevertheless important to the history of video games? Note that:
 * 1) Per WP:CLN guideline, lists and categories "should not be considered in conflict with each other" (having one doesn't imply having to delete the other)
 * 2) The inclusion criteria for Category:Female characters in video games explicitly excludes characters that don't have their own articles, so the category doesn't serve the same purpose. So anyone voting for deletion in terms of redundancy should explain how is one expected to find those non-article characters if this list is deleted.
 * 3) Concerns of size don't imply deletion either, because Wikipedia is not paper. The list is manageable because it only includes significant characters in notable videogames, so it's not really indiscriminate.  See also this recent outcome for a similar list of notable and non-notable fictional characters - the standard for lists of fictional entities is to keep them and split them when they grow. Diego (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Faith is atually independently notable (I come upon sources discussing her all the time), just nobody cared to make an article (a proper article, a similar situation is with the heroes of the Assassin's Creed series, or this dude from Dead Space, who are huge, but their articles sucked and so they kept being merged). Amaterasu maybe too (maybe). But anyway: where to "find Wikipedia's coverage of characters", right now? In the articles Ōkami and Mirror's Edge, I suppose. No? --Niemti (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That can be done only when you already know that those particular video-games have important female protagonists. The question is how you can learn that fact for games in general in a systematic way. Diego (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But "important" according to whom, exactly? Because you forgot to write about it in the article (and actually to use even one reference to source the entire article), so people might think it's just your original research - as far as in know, you just added a bunch of characters randomly (I never heard about "Galatea from the eponymous interactive fiction", or any article mentioning her). --Niemti (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I don't think Galatea (video game) is even notable as a game (and even it's "XYZZY Award" has notability questioned and still not estabilished since Feb 2009). --Niemti (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Important to reliable sources, of course. If you follow the links to those articles you'll find the sources that establish their significance - even if they lack independent notability according to the Wikipedia standard for stand-alone articles; their relevance is tied to that of the games where they appear. The problem with the Category:Female characters in video games is that it's biased toward characters that appear in game franchises; most often that not, their repeated appearance in separate games (&lt;as well as their boobs&gt;) is what makes them distinct enough to have their own article, since professional media mention how their appearance (&lt;and their boobs!&gt;) evolved as technology improves. Those characters important to gaming history for anything other than &lt;boobs&gt; are unlikely to appear at the category. (Ok, that oversimplifies the problem, but look at the category and think if doesn't have a seed of truth ;-).
 * Characters that are important for only one game don't satisfy this coverage as a separate entities, but they're neverdeless being described by video game media in the context of their games. Galatea for example was a huge hit in the obscure field of interactive fiction (and being obscure doesn't affect notability). Yorda and Faith Connors are popular in general and could likely had her own articles; but right now they don't. Amaterasu is a goddess, it makes more sense to have a passing comment in the goddess article than a stand-alone article for the game character, and link to that paragraph; which you couldn't do in the category.
 * We must provide a way for a researcher in portrayal of females to find all those instances in a centralized way; and again the category doesn't serve to provide that, because it's limited to articles about characters and not games. Size is not a concern, we already have huge Lists of fictional things such as lists of characters and fictional vehicles and so on. Diego (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't "must" nothing of it, actually. These are just characters arbitraly chosen by you for the reason you think are notable because you think they are notable. I think this Galaeta is much less notable even than, I don't know, that gun-toting hooker from Saints Row: The Third shooting other chicks, because at least I heard of her even as I don't remember her name or care, but I never even heard about this Galetea game, and so did Game Rankings or Metacritic (and yes I just checked), and IGN and GameSpot also had nothing (and I mean nothing at all) - so that's rather something totally obscure, which is a exact opposite of notability. If you want to "provide a way for a researcher in portrayal of" Faith, there are tons of sources for you to make an article Faith Connors, but on the other hand Yorda is not a character that anyone can make a Wikipedia article about, because not only she's from a minimalistic game but also she's literally useless. --Niemti (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Galatea (video game), the XYZZY Awards, and interactive fiction as a genre are all three notable even if you've never heard of them, Niemti. The independent notability of Galatea the character is a different matter in my view, but the other three are very abundantly clearly notable if you pay even a little attention to the text adventure scene. -Thibbs (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And yet - practically all of gaming media (or media in general) just don't care for "the text adventure scene" since the graphic adventure games became popular (and then unpopular, but now somewhat popular again). Like, at all. And you know the implications. --Niemti (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the MUD debacle perchance? :) I know modern-genre video games are better represented in the press, but our collective failure to properly cover historically notable gaming genres has literally made us the laughing stock of the mainstream video game press in the past. And of course it only pours fuel on the criticism of Wikipedia's rampant recentism. Sources definitely exist for notable elements of the text adventure scene, and rest assured that the works of Emily Short are notable elements even if some people have never heard of her. -Thibbs (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Mark Brown News contributor, Wired.co.uk" failed to notice/understand how thousands of books/films (but books especially - like, millions of them?) also "don't have pages at all." Now, just where are those other sources about Galatea? Certainly not in the article, so where? And the article cites some Adam Cadre as "respected". So I just checked where his "respect" comes from - and it comes from Emily Short (according to Wikipedia). It's a circle jerk and they have no influence on gaming at all (as for "have arguably shaped and influenced huge sections of our current gaming landscape" argument). Don't believe me? The game came out in 2000 - so what was its influence in the 12 years since then? [insert crickets noise] Oh, and as of "Rock, Paper, Shotgun praised the depth and detail of the game," (which was probably the only mention of the game in any mass media) - it's false. What it really was: "This week will be punctuated by some guest-posts from writer chums of RPS. The first of these is by Lewis Denby, and is about Galatea by Emily Short." The guy's from BeefJack. What's BeefJack? I don't know, and they're not helping. The game is not Wikipedia notable at all, like some random mobile game nobody heard about. --Niemti (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that you confound notability with overall importance; notability can accept pretty obscure topics, as long as those who write about them are independent sources. It's a common initial error to make (I see you've been around here for less than a year). In any case, this extended talk about Galatea should be at a different place; as it's slightly off-topic to this discussion about the list in general, and there are several other characters in the same situation. Diego (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I take it from your question regarding where the sources are and from your suggestion that you think the article is lacking them, that you are keen to improve the Galatea article, Niemti. So I'll post some of the 94 RSes covering the topic to your talk page. Hope you can bring it up to GA level! -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more like "keen to" delete this article for covering an absolutely un-notable game that was not even listed at neither Metacritic or GR despite being released in 2000 for the PC, and when you search for "Galatea" in, say, IGN all you'll get is their pro-wrestling writer Miss Galetea (who no, isn't named after the game, and also isn't notable, and has no article here on Wikipedia). --Niemti (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see neither notabilty nor "overall importance". Is it, quoting you, "important to the history of games"? No. Not at all. Null. Zero influence, will never be listed in any list of 10/100/1000 top/best/most influential games of all time by any notable gaming publication. Was it covered when it was released by industry media or other mass media? No. It's supposed notability stems from a very small circle of people who are patting each other on the back (according to their Wikipedia articles, Short is notable due to being acclaimed by Cadre, and Cadre's notable due to being acclaimed by Short - that's cute, in a way). Subjects like that all should be redirected and covered in interactive fiction, in short but (hopefully) well sourced. A guy at Wired talked something about a possibility of making a wiki at Wikia, this too. --Niemti (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you've mastered how Wikipedia notability works. (And no, that's not ironic, it actually works roughly that way). Diego (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But really Niemti, let's stop discussing this extremely tangential issue here and instead move it to your talk page if you are still interested in belaboring this demonstrably tired point. -Thibbs (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I just tried to make it better by deleting random characters (with no articles of their own) and sorting them alphabetically, Diego reverted me because it "repurposed the list. The idea is to navigate to all characters described in Wikipedia, not just the notable ones (those are already at Category:Female video game characters)". Uhhhh.... there are, like, thousands of such characters "described in Wikipedia", and I just see no reason for adding them randomly, or adding them all (imagine such a list, which would be still incomplete). Anyway, here's my version: - it's still unreferenced (I just addded the tag), etc., but now it's somewhat better. And no, Cyan didn't nominate my version. (And it wasn't me who started the article neither.) It's usefulness is... some. It's surely better than just looking at the list in the category, where there are only their names and sometimes also the games (in names). I wouldn't start such an article, but I won't vote for a deletion neither. I'd totally rewrite, it though (like, sorting them by a genre, and skipping these unsourced and sometimes just inaccurate/ridiculous descriptions). --Niemti (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This one is the version that existed when the list was nominated, and that correspond to the inclusion criterion by which the list was created. I would be OK to repurpose the list to have only characters with their own articles (though then it would be an exact parallel of the category), but then I'd start a new list for "Female video-game characters not in video-game franchises" because I believe the current purpose of the list is important. Diego (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But first you would have to demonstrate a need for such an article, and how much is this particular subject of "female video-game characters not in video-game franchises" is discussed in sources so it can be properly referenced. --Niemti (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's OK, I'm willing to find out the best possible subtopic of this list to make that list; it's likely to be related to the portrayal of female video game characters, since those are important to the history of games. Diego (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: We have a category to cover notable female characters. If we trimmed this list down to match that category, it would be essentially redundant.  If we included every single female character in a video game, this list would be unmanageably huge.  It's not even close to including every female character in a video game.  I'd say it's short by a couple orders of magnitude.  Just to take a single example, the list includes Elaine Marley from the Monkey Island adventure games.  But if we look more deeply into the LucasArts games, we find that almost every game has at least one female character, many of them playable.  That one company's games would add a couple dozen entries to this list all by itself.  I could almost see a way forward, if this were broken down by year, maybe, but overall it's just not feasible to maintain what will inexorably become a gigantic mess. —Torchiest talkedits 17:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this list be proposed for deletion after it has become a gigantic mess, then? We manage very well with lists of the size of Lists of characters in a fictional work, which is a superset of the current one, so how can this small part of that list be unmanageable? Also this list is not intended for "every female character in a video game", it has a clear inclusion criterion. Diego (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misspoke slightly. I did mean every significant, but then there is the argument of what constitutes significant.  My example still applies.  Let's look at another LucasArts adventure game.  In Maniac Mansion, you can control two different female characters, and are attempting to rescue a third.  One of the primary antagonists is also female.  That's four more "significant" characters just in one game.  As for the list of lists, notice that it has a section for Lists of video game characters, which breaks the lists down by some of the biggest game series.  I think that would probably be another superior option.  Otherwise, every one-off game with a major female character would eventually be added.  Anyway, I haven't precisely argued for deletion.  I just think this particular approach is problematic. —Torchiest talkedits 20:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the problem with having every one-off game with major female characters? In the case of Maniac Mansion, I'm not aware that any reliable source has discussed the significance of those characters as females, so probably those four wouldn't be included in the list. But if some important magazine has reported how they portray the fair sex, then it's a good thing to list them and register what that reliable source said about them. Nevertheless, I'm all ears to better approaches to achieve the same result (deletion is not one of them, of course). Diego (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your article has zero sources whatseover, and you think an actually incredibly obscure character from some unknown self-published game is "notable" and "important to the history of video games". (At least I heard of, and played, Maniac Mansion, and they even have their own Wikia, among other things.) --Niemti (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not Diego Moya's article, Niemti. Otherwise, though, I definitely agree that articles like this need proper sourcing just the same as all other articles on Wikipedia. This issue is a big problem for many if not most of the "list of fictional X" articles. -Thibbs (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Diego, the problem with including every one-off character is that it becomes an unbounded list. Like Torchiest pointed out above, "significant" is not a defined term in this article. I would strongly recommend changing the inclusion criteria to "notable" characters which is at least a defined term within Wikipedia. If there are clear inclusion criteria then it seems like the article should be kept because the underlying topic "female video game characters" is a notable topic and list articles are fine for Wikipedia even if they duplicate categories. -Thibbs (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point. But notability is a criterion for whole articles, not for content within articles. I have presented examples above for lists where including non-notable elements is not a problem; in fact the common selection criteria displays "failing the notability criteria" as an acceptable criterion for lists. This is what I was aiming for when I included those characters - to list everything that wouldn't fit in the category. This should alleviate the problem you described of recentism and failure to properly report gaming history. In any case we should be debating how to refine the inclusion criteria in the talk page, rather than having or not the list at AfD. Diego (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're misreading WP:CSC. Point #2 uses every entry in the list fails the notability criteria as its limitation. Surely you're not suggesting a list of all non-notable female characters that have ever existed, right? Point #1, on the other hand establishes that Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia is commonly used and interestingly it was only a few minutes ago that you removed the claim that it was recently used for "most of the best lists on Wikipedia". I've reverted that edit, by the way because you're clearly invested in the outcome as it relates to this discussion and there's been no consensus in talk there that this is a good move. If consensus emerges then we can restore your deletion later. Regarding this AfD, I vote keep only provided that the list is maintainable. It's not maintainable unless there are clear inclusion criteria. "Significant" is not a defined term and "Significant according to Diego Moya" violates WP:POV. "Notability" is clearly defined and it is listed as CSC#1 - the selection criterion used for what have been described as "most of the best lists on Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to have a list with only non-notable characters; and again, Notability is about the topic of the article, not its content; it's ok to have non-notable content about notable topics in all Wikipedia articles. In any case, the policy supports them as valid; and the significant criterion has always been about reliable sources, not my opinion. BTW I made that change to policy way before this discussion started, and because of talk for a different list. I was a WP:BOLD removal of a sentence that was included by a single editor and that had not been discussed at the policy talk page (I checked it), so it didn't have a strong consensus behind it; have I found it had been supported by a previous consensus, I wouldn't have edited it until someone had answered. I'm glad to continue the discussion at the policy page to find out what the real consensus is about that sentence; because there wasn't any, so I believe my opinion is as good as anyone else's. Diego (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please check that date again; November 22nd was not a few minutes ago. ;-) Diego (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is about the topic of the article and for lists under CSC#1 it is also about the individual list members. Using this stricter inclusion criterion prevents a massive list like the one we're discussing from becoming unmanageable listcruft like the one we're discussing risks becoming (if it's not already there). There is no "significant" criterion listed at WP:CSC, and it has never been defined. If it is about reliable sourcing then it is really just a stand-in for notability. But however it's been defined according to local convention at the article, it needs to be properly defined so that outsiders can contribute meaningfully. Linking an outsider to WP:N to show what is needed for valid inclusion is much better in my view than blind-siding them that "significant" has a conventional meaning at this article that is different from their understanding of the word. Regarding the WP:CSC talk-page issue, your opinion is certainly valid and I apologize for reading COIishness into your edit. -Thibbs (talk) 14:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, if you understand "significant" as tied to notability, let's use "verifiable" instead; my argument remains the same. And, well, the possibilities at WP:CSC are not exhaustive; let's use the general WP:LSC then - Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? Indeed - Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X? Yes!!!. And a list with 60 characters is listcruft? What do you make of the list of fictional vehicles then? Diego (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Using verifiability as a criterion is a step in the right direction. I'd still prefer notability though since it keeps lists like this from getting crufty. List of fictional vehicles has good examples of cruft entries, yes. -Thibbs (talk) 15:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll answering below, starting a new thread. Diego (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article's existence seems silly because it doesn't have a counterpart article for male video game characters. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I get it, everybody loves to think that women are terribly unrepresented and would for some reason need a silly list like this monstrosity to offset that somehow... But categories exist for a reason, come on. This is so cut and dry it's laughable, but I guarantee the outcry by feminists above are more than like to get this clear example of a delete relisted. T.I.M(Contact) 22:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  22:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Provided that the term "female video game characters appearing in a significant role" in the lede be replaced with "notable female video game characters". The current "significant role" inclusion criterion is undefined and unworkable. Notability is well defined and provides necessary clarity on the topic of inclusion - something that is made necessary by such a potentially massive topic. To address the specific reason that this list meets the threshold of includability on Wikipedia, we need look no further than the obvious notability of the list's topic - "female video game characters". The lede needs to be expanded to summarize this topic and JohnnyMrNinja's comment suggests to me that Portrayal of women in video games may be the best place to start for material leading to this expanded lede. The article also needs sources badly. Ideally every entry should be sourced. The sourcing should demonstrate notability as well as the descriptive elements of the inclusion criteria (i.e. that it's a female character and that it comes from the video game listed in its entry). The article needs a lot of love and care if it's to start looking like keeper material, but I think at it's core it's an OK list for Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that I see a lot of wisdom in Torchiest's suggestion that the list be broken down by year because even before the addition of an expanded lede and actual sources, the list is already getting massive. -Thibbs (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Portrayal of women in video games is only a redirect. --Niemti (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's a redirect to an article that should be used to expand the lede. This one. -Thibbs (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The scope is too large, and too redundant to the equivalent category, much as Cyan stated in his nomination. (I'm not saying some of these proposed reworkings couldn't work, but I think they'd require so much change that it wouldn't be the same article anymore - it wouldn't be a "Keep" as much as it would be "Deleting this article and starting a new one.") Sergecross73   msg me   19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sergecross73, delete discussions decide upon the viability of a topic, not the status of an article. If you think the proposed reworkings would work, that's admitting that the list can exist in some form. The proper outcome then should be to keep the list and continue discussing it at its talk page. Diego (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of how AFD works, but that's actually what I'm getting at - I don't think this topic is viable, and any changing of this topic would require so much change that it would no longer have the identity of this topic anymore. Sergecross73   msg me   21:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be a move then? Some content about these characters is going to be used for that new list; and this article's history would be needed then for attribution of its authors. Diego (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Using verifiability or notability?
There seems to be a beginning of understanding here. I prefer to use verifiability over notability for the inclusion criterion for the reasons stated in my "question to the nominator" above, that so far no one has answered; a navigational list should help readers locate content relevant to the list's topic, whether or not that content has a whole article for it; the way we organize the content is irrelevant to such reader. I think Purposes of lists is the guideline that best describes this approach, but WP:Build the web and Advantages of a list are also relevant.

If we limit the list critierion to include characters that have been described somewhere in Wikipedia with more than a few words and support from a reliable source, the scope is reduced considerably; it's no longer "a list of all female characters in videogames", but "an index to Wikipedia content that describes female characters". The amount of entries in the list is one-to-one with characters that Wikipedia editors have written about, so it is no longer unmaintenable.

Can you elaborate on what you don't agree of this analysis? Maybe you can think of a better approach than a list to achieve that goal? Diego (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think there are two different viable approaches to take. An unbounded list (all female characters, what we have now) which requires individual notability of all characters, or bounded (either by game series, year, or something similar) lists that require only verifiability. Having an unbounded list with low inclusion standards will lead make this a magnet for never-ending additions. —Torchiest talkedits 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that analysis. I prefer a list bounded by year, requiring verifiability. This way the contents of the list can be expanded in the relevant article, the inclusion criterion doesn't replicate the category, and the individual list for each year will retain a reasonable size - since the elements that pertain in it are finite and can't grow after the end of the year. If one year is prolific in female characters, it can be further split by genre - or vice versa, one list by genre, and have each list split by year. Diego (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree that if notability is not to be used as an inclusion criterion then some other bounds must be imposed to keep the list manageable. -Thibbs (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm classifying the characters by year here. When I finish it, I will split the list by year according to the above consensus. This will make it easier to maintain the list according to WP:SPLIT when it grows. Diego (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable. This makes 8 delete opinions to only a single, very conditional, keep. Do we have a consensus yet??? I would have closed this long ago, but I assumed somebody already had done so. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉  22:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We had developed a consensus here to keep the list and change the inclusion criterion to bound the list by year. The people who not-voted to delete did it before this consensus was developed and didn't comment after that. Do you have something to add to that consensus? (the notability hadn't been introduced in this discussion before, but the consensus that female video games characters are considered notable has been made clear several times here and here). Diego (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, regarding your first link, you definitely can't pick a subsection of this AFD that supports your claim, and then claim you have consensus to keep - that's ignoring the 8 delete !votes. Secondly, just because we keep the "gender roles" article and the "female characters category" you linked to above, doesn't make this particular list notable. I understand you feel strongly about this, but you can't just bulldoze your way through things like that either. Sergecross73   msg me   17:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that the "!" in "!vote" means not? You should re-read and understand WP:POLL and WP:CONSENSUS, because you don't seem to understand how consensus is reached through discussion, not polling. Of course I can link to the point where consensus was formed in this AfD, since the arguments in those 8 comments were taken into account (basically a soft form of WP:NOT -not pointing at any particular NOT criterion- with some IDONTLIKEFEMALE-ONLYARTICLES and worries about article size). This is what is expected to happen at AfD discussions - consensus is not magically formed when and admin closes the talk by counting people at each side. Rather editors are supposed to decide the best outcome for the article by building consensus and compromising on the concerns that each editor have. This is what happened in the discussion above between Torchiest, Thibbs, and I. Diego (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, I don't need you to tell me how AFD works, I've probably participated in close to 300 hundred of them now. I'm just saying you can't just take a sample of the discussion that sides with your argument, and say "there's consensus now". There's at least 8 people who don't agree with you, they're not all winners, but there's still certainly considerable opposition here. Many people go to an AFD, say there stance, and then never revisit it, so you can't just say "Well, they never responded to my subsection, it must means they gave up/ don't care. Let's ignore them." Sergecross73   msg me   19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The people who don't agree with keeping should be making policy-based arguments and trying to build consensus, not casting me-too not-votes based on unexplained reasons or arguments to avoid and then disappearing. If those people who didn't mention any policy have their comments are rejected with policy-based arguments and don't discuss further, their comments should indeed have little weight, because AfD is not a poll but a discussion. Diego (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. This isn't meant to imply that editors should return again and again to discuss the AfD, only that they should make an articulate argument at some point, either from the beginning or when requested for clarification. Diego (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Arguments for notability
User:Sue Rangell introduced a new concern of notability. (There was a conversation with Niemti about notability above, but it was about individual characters and not the notability of the topic). Sue's argument is a just not notable (a form of just pointing at a policy or guideline) with an argument to the person added by Sergecross73 (my involvement with the article should not have any weight for nor against my arguments); counting the !votes is a form of the support argument. There's a reason all those arguments are listed in the arguments to avoid - they are against current policies and guidelines, and as such they make very poor arguments against the list. An argument against notability should rely on the number or quality of the sources describing the topic.

Now this list has the exact same topic as the category, that had direct consensus to keep at this afd discussion. The sources that User:coelacan gave there (such as this and this, together with the references at Gender representation in video games), are a solid way to establish the notability of female characters in video games as a notable topic. Diego (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear here, that wasn't my rationale for deletion, that was my description of how you were handling things at this AFD. My argument was that the list was poorly defined, redundant to a category, and that any sort of changing in criteria would require so much changing to meet notability standards that it simply wouldn't be the same article anymore, so this article in particular should be deleted. My "argument to the person" was that you came to an agreement among a few editors in a new subsection, and declared there to be consensus, ignoring all of the 8 people who disagreed with you, because they didn't comment further in your subsection, which is very wrong, there were some poor rationales, but you grouped everyone who opposed you as one big "poor rationale". I feel like you're pushing your stance a little too hard. (And based off of what a truly terrible job you did at summarizing my stance, I continue to think this.) Sergecross73   msg me   19:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, how would you define the topic of this article? I define it as "female characters that appear in notable video-games", and I've shown how it meets notability. Your other reasons for deletion are surmountable problems (P.S. or not even a problem, like being redundant with a category) and thus don't merit deleting the article, as I pointed out before. (I didn't ignore  the 8 Delete not-votes, everything that was not an argument to avoid was responded either at my not-vote (Question...), in my talk with Torchiest at his comment, or later with Thibbs. Having all active   in agreement about everything that had been said, and the rest not commenting is a very good way to achieve consensus according to WP:CON). Diego (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's the thing though, you haven't proven this article to be notable. You've said, "here's an article we have about it, and here's a category, therefore, the list is notable". Notability isn't WP:INHERITED like that. The list, as is, is extremely broad and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a valid reason for deletion of vaguely defined lists. While the "Deletes" haven't necessarily cited these by linking to them, I feel like that's what the nomination the first few deletes are getting at. I know you have ideas on changing the definition of what the article is, and that's great, but then it's no longer this article. If we're changing the criteria, and all of the content (I mean, right now, it's largely unusable - a randomly selected group of video characters, largely unsourced, with a bunch of WP:OR, personal observations about the characters) we should delete this mess and start new with a notable topic.
 * Additionally, I think you're misusing the term "active editors". I'm pretty certain "active editors" is meant to include any editors who have commented on the topic in the last week and a half. Additionally, there's nothing wrong with leaving a stance and being done, people have no obligation to argue this out with you until the end like I have. (In fact, many editors don't like it when people like us carry on, they prefer it doesn't deter others from joining in and creating a clearer consensus. I'm about to be done myself, as I fear all of this arguing may just lead to a "No Consensus"... Sergecross73   msg me   21:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to make one thing crystal clear: I'm NOT saying the opposition should have small weight because they've not commented recently, but because the have not made an articulate argument on why this should be deleted. If an editor had made a link to a relevant policy and explained how it applies to this list then of course it should be taken into account. The only comment that did this (Clarityfiend's link to WP:SALAT) has been addressed with the consensus to define a specific inclusion criterion.
 * You're again committing the same mistake that AfDs are not to discuss articles but topics; we're supposed to decide whether Wikipedia can or cannot have an article about female video characters at all, not if this WP:IMPERFECT article is the one to have. Only content with legality problems (such as WP:COPYVIO and unsourced WP:BLP) is deleted because of its status; the rest falls under WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, which is a Wikipedia policy even if people at AfDs tend to forget it.
 * You keep pointing to policies that don't support what you say except in the title. INHERITED here would imply that the list is notable because the Category:Female characters in video games is famous, which is not exactly what I said, is it? And INDISCRIMINATE is for lists without a defining criterion, but this is not one of them.
 * Your "this would be a different article" argument is but an attempt to disguise a WP:NOTCLEANUP argument. It's for that reason that AfDs decide on topics not articles, and even you admit that Wikipedia can have a list about female characters. Your argument is against WP:PRESERVE (all the items in the list should be in whatever list of characters would be created from anew, even if it's incomplete now), WP:COPYRIGHT (we must retain the history attribution for the authors of the work done until now) and Deletion policy and WP:IMPERFECT (articles are deleted as a last resort when editors agree their content cannot be fixed, not when they're in a poor state).
 * I recognize there's a lot of opposition based on the status on this list; the talk page is the place to discuss those, not AfD. I've been taking notes on how to improve this list after it's retained. Diego (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, it's abundantly clear that we don't see eye to eye on this, so I don't see a point in beating a dead horse and continuing this. I feel this article should be deleted because it has a massive indiscriminate scope, and any proposed changes are outside of the scope of this AFD. It's not simply "clean up" when it requires pretty much a clean start in concept, inclusion criteria and content, and I don't see the point in preserving the history of a completely different article, an article which will pretty much cease to exist whether it's kept or deleted, according to what you're proposing to do to it. Sergecross73   msg me   18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article history is required to track WP:copyright of the retained content even if the topic changes. Diego (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleting this article, and you starting up a different one with a different title, inclusion criteria, content, and sources - is absolutely not a copyright issue. It's a new article. That is a ridiculous argument for keeping this article. Sergecross73   msg me   04:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For last time, what matters is not that it's a different Wikipedia article, it's that some of the content will need to be kept in it and this requires attribution. There are no other available sources for the new article nor a different collection of major characters in the history of video games to choose from. Also your position is in direct contradiction of WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE and the idea that articles are not created from scratch every time they have a problem, but built upon the work of previous editors. Diego (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but not when your proposal is so radically different than what this article is. Sergecross73   msg me   16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but exactly how my proposal is radically different? The only change I propose is a rewording of the inclusion criterion and a new layout. Diego (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you just said different inclusion criteria and layout above, and the article is currently almost entirely unsourced, and consists entirely of random WP:OR observations of random characters. Everyone seems to agree that that is not okay. So, putting that all together, how is different name, different content, different inclusion criteria, different sources, and different descriptions not radically different? You're only changing everything! Sergecross73   msg me   17:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per Cyan and T.I.M . There is no written criteria as to which characters are notable, and there is no "List of male video game characters by role." The list just doesn't make sense. I agree with Sue Rangell, there is a big opposition. There are 9 delete votes + nom against 1 keep. Although this is not a poll, it is clear that the consensus is delete. (Don't say that I don't know how this works because I'm new to Wikipedia, anyone looking at this Afd can see that the consensus provided by the arguments above is delete.) Jucchan (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They are notable because they are blue links to their own Wikipedia articles, or have been a main character in a notable game series. And the fact that another article doesn't exist yet, is no reason to delete this one.   D r e a m Focus  23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that how it works? Any list can be assembled as long as it contains all blue links? Sergecross73   msg me   00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * YES, if it's a list of similar items with a common defining property, unless it's a cross-categorization of two unrelated characteristics, something that is not the case here. Diego (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is superior to the category, since it list what role they had, not just that they were female video game characters notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article.  D r e a m Focus  23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Diego, if you really need to have an otherwise random list of characters that you think are important and discuss their roles or whatever, maybe make your own wiki or a blog or even a whole website like this one (I'm not saying it's good, it's actually very poor and just ridicalous, but it's there). You now, that's why. --Niemti (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything in this list is attributable to reliable sources, even if not actually attributed (as I pointed out they're well referenced at their respective articles, one click away). You should read the policies you link to, they explain a lot. Diego (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? OK. Attribute your selection of characters (and "notable video game[s]") "to reliable sources". (This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.) Show me these lists that you based your list on. Must include video games such as Monster World IV (no reception section on Wikipedia at all) and La Pucelle: Tactics (1 review on Wikipedia) being described as "notable" in the sources "directly related to the topic of the article". Btw, GiantBomb has many "video game concept" articles for female characters and tags for all that stuff. And they need no sources. And their lists are much, much more extensive. For example, just "Female Protagonists" has 733 games and also lots of characters; Female Antagonists - 146 games; Sexalized Women - 463 games; and so on. And you can make your own lists, like that or that. Your insistance on making your own list on Wikipedia really leads nowhere. --Niemti (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a cleanup issue. We can discuss it at the list's talk page if you wish, as it has no relevance to this deletion discussion. It could be a problem to the list's existence if all or most entries were original research, but most characters are notable, and I've shown several valid references already for some of the rest. (BTW I don't understand how pointing to reliable sources that cover the topic can be stated as an argument for deletion?)Diego (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's a fundemental issue. You're doing exactly what, for example, users of GiantBomb are doing for a long time (and with much better effects), using the same method (original research). But Wikipedia is not GiantBomb. And your refusal to show me these (supposed) reliable sources that directly led to your inclusion of these 2 specific games (Monster World IV & La Pucelle: Tactics) on your COMPLETELY RANDOM list (GB has more than 10 times more games only for featuring female protagonists) of this is really tiresome for me and evidently it's leading nowhere, so I'll just end it here. Oh, and Delete. --Niemti (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Check the article again - it took about ten minutes. Doing it for all entries is a matter of time (maybe more than the one week that an AfD usually takes, but it can be done). Diego (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. Why do you assume I was the one who added those particular characters to the list? Wikipedia is a collaborative work. I didn't know about their existence before some else added them to the list, something that couldn't have happened with the category, but I now know their basic characteristics and roles in the games thanks to the links to their Wikipedia articles. This is the purpose why the list was created. Diego (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Niemti. This is a fundamental issue. Almost any female character in a videogame can be in this list, as long as someone decides that she's important to them. The references, like Niemti said, only supposedly "justify" adding 2 characters on this biased list. Jucchan (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Note that I didn't list this debate at the above page, I've just added the tag when I noticed. Diego (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I think the use of specific examples is not particularly helpful here since 1 or 2 cruft inclusions (if they even are legitimately cruft additions) have never been enough to invalidate the list's topic and demand its deletion. What I see here is that the topic (i.e. "female video game characters") is at its core a valid topic for a list - it is certainly one that is covered significantly by multiple independent RSes and non-list articles like "Gender representation in video games" demonstrate this clearly. So I really don't think the GNG is a problem for the article even if it is for individual list entries. The list needs an expansion of its lede including clearly defined inclusion criteria and proper sourcing at last. Beyond this I think the reason most people here are !voting delete is out of practical concerns. This is a large list and with its current inclusion criteria it has the potential to become enormously unwieldy and unhelpful for navigation or illustration of the topic. Such a list is unencyclopedic. The only solution to this very valid concern is to delete the article or to impose stricter inclusion criteria so that it isn't just a list of every female character anyone can think of significant or minor and notable or trivial. I think that with a large effort it can be salvaged but it seems that those !voting delete think it's a lost cause. It's a judgment call, but I think there is broad agreement that the list in its current form (a large list topic with very inclusive inclusion criteria) is not something that helps Wikipedia as a project. -Thibbs (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The list is not for every female character anyone can think of significant or minor and notable or trivial. Read the inclusion criteria to see that it already has the more restricted criterion that you demand; it's only for prominent characters that have been described with reliable sources at Wikipedia articles in major roles (the list currently holds only protagonists, sidekicks and/or playable characters). We could rewrite it to make the accepted contents clearer, but please don't base your argument on false assumptions as to what is the inclusion criterion. WP:NOTPAPER is a core content policy created to prevent your "too big" argument. Niemti pointed above how other wikis can work to create and maintain lists much bigger than this, so why the assumption that we couldn't do a much better job? We've done it already with lists much more difficult than this one.
 * The problem with the current debate is that the people opposing the current status and inclusion criterion are using all the wrong reasons for a deletion, to achieve a solution that would stop dead the list from improving; a delete outcome would make the current contents unavailable and I wouldn't be legally able to continue working on this because of the WP:COPYRIGHT lack of attribution. The community-wide consensus codified in policies is designed to prevent that outcome even if there's a local consensus against the current situation. I want to Keep this list against those poor arguments, but if the sentiment against the list is so strong that, against the rules, the community cannot take its WP:IMPERFECT status, let's soft delete and WP:INCUBATE it until I have time to finish the cleanup work I'm doing behind the scenes and restore the list to an acceptable status, splitting it by year and with in-line citations as was requested.
 * It would also greatly help that someone addressed my concern, my "question to the nominator" above, and explained what is considered acceptable as a way to solve that problem. Dispute resolution and consensus building is supposed to address the valid concerns made by all participants, but so far all participation has been in the negative and nobody cared to find a solution to the reason that motivated the creation of this list. Diego (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it's certainly clearer now that you moved the inclusion criteria from talk to lede... But I still have concerns due to the undefined nature of "major" and "prominent" and the apparent lack of interest in using a defined term like notability as an inclusion criterion. The potential for the list to become large and unmanaged/unmanageable is clear if we impose no restrictions and like Torchiest explained above, I don't see it as much better if we use loosely-defined terms like "major," "significant," or "prominent." These terms don't strike me as "direct" and "explicit" or "unambiguously clear." Surely characters that are truly major, significant, and prominent are also WP:N notable, no? So why beat around the bush? Is there any concern that a list of all notable female characters in video games would be too small?
 * I don't think it's correct to imply that the numerous comments from editors above regarding excessive breadth/expansiveness of the topic (as currently defined) aren't valid concerns simply because they are negative. Too large a scope can easily allow a large list article to become unmanaged and/or unmaintainable. Such list scopes are un-encyclopedic - a violation of one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles - and they work directly against list navigation. These are valid concerns. NOTPAPER isn't carte blanche to include everything verifiable, and it clearly states that "keeping articles to a reasonable size is important." The list's current definition is loose enough to render it over-broad and over-inclusive. There are ways to fix it including tightening the inclusion criteria beyond mere verifiability and personally-defined terms, but there seems to be clear consensus that the status quo is not workable. I for one would have no objection to your request for incubation/userfication as an alternative to deletion. -Thibbs (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is a bad criterion for this list because 1) it's a definition created by Wikipedia, not external sources, 2) the Notability definition is intended for creating whole articles, not for content, 3) using it makes the list completely redundant with the category anyway, removing the additional benefits.
 * The criterion I wrote at the lead section is already stricter than the original one. The terms used to establish the accepted major characters (protagonists, antagonists and playable characters) also have clear definitions in the articles for Protagonist, Antagonist and Player character, with the additional advantage that we could rely on external sources to support the criterion instead of depending on editor's judgement. And no, not all characters in a role that's major to their plot are Wikipedia-notable - if you've been around AfD you'll know that WP:N is a very hard to make and not inherited from the video game to the characters in it. That was the flaw that this list intended to solve - major female characters were being removed from the category because the articles that described them were about their videogames instead, so it was impossible to use the category as an index to Wikipedia coverage of the topic.
 * My question to the nominator that nobody has answered is for an acceptable way to solve this problem. I can't see how an index like this can be unmaintainable - it would contain exactly the same amount of characters that Wikipedians have already written about somewhere, and would thus grow at the same pace that Wikipedia video game articles.
 * Size in lists has always been dealt with splitting, not deletion, as the NOT policy that you linked to explains. Why do you assume everything should be kept in one Wikipedia page? It's not. Torchiest above suggested splitting the page by year to make each sub-list finite. This would keep each page within WP:Article size limits, but there are other workable critera (by role, game franchise, etc). This is how navigation lists of this nature are usually handled.
 * The consensus about the status quo is unclear because everyone seems to be getting a different idea of what could go in the list (for instance it never accepted "any major or minor character" to begin with). This is a sign that the original inclusion criterion had a problem of clarity, but it's unclear whether opposition would extend to the new criterion. Btw "uncencyclopedic" is a bad argument if you don't also explain what guideline it violates and how. I don't imply that the opposing comments are not valid, but they're unclear and badly expressed - given that nobody has been able to do just that (saying how the list breaches any guideline), I think that's a symptom that the perceived problem is radically simple to solve and thus a reason to fix it. Diego (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A few specific responses:
 * 1 - The fact that notability is defined in the encyclopedia in which the article appears rather than in an external third party source is actually a benefit. And individual list-member notability while not strictly required for all lists is certainly used for a large number of very large and featured lists. If you're trying to come up with a reason notability as a criterion is inappropriate for this article then you must come up with a reason specific to this list's topic.
 * 2 - While notability is not always a requirement for content, it is definitely allowed to be adopted as a more restrictive criterion. See Common Selection Criterion #1. This guideline presents allowable and encouraged selection criteria. While you have pointed to CSC#3 in the past as your vision for this article, the consensus above seems to suggest that this list's current topic is too broad for this CSC.
 * 3 - The argument of list redundancy with categories is just as invalid now as it was when I noted this above. See WP:NOTDUP.
 * 4 - The fact that characters are removed from the category or that they will be from the list is not a problem. As counterintuitive as it may seem to you sometimes improvement comes from cutting out unhelpful material. Massive lists of everythign verifiable are not appropriate for Wikipedia. They are hard to navigate and the reader gets lost in the cruft. They are unmanageable because in my experience nobody has them on their watchlist apart from perhaps the list's creator. And when loosely-defined terms like "major" or "very important" or "big-name" are used as the list's definition we end up with a situation where the article's creator is the ultimate arbiter of what comes in and what stays out. When the article's creator retires from Wikipedia then the article degenerates into truly ungovernable chaos. Splitting them then makes them even harder to navigate.
 * -Thibbs (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: splitting by year as Torchiest discussed is not an ideal solution in my view, but it's better than the status quo with which there is quite clearly a problem. I'd prefer using notability as the cutoff, but if a consensus emerges that a split by year is sufficient then I'd bow to this consensus. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a problem that is specific to the current list and for which notability is inadequate. I have stated it repeatedly throughout this conversation but so far no one has even acknowledge to have read my articulation of the problem. The problem is that characters that are important to the history of video games, as recognized by reliable sources, are being left out of the Wikipedia index as defined by the "notability of the character", because they've been included only under the notability of the video game. See characters like the girl that Mario rescued in Donkey Kong, Yorda from Ico, Amaterasu from Okami, several protagonists of notable games (such as Faith Connors, Farah, and Chell before Portal II)... These characters have influenced the portrayal of females at later games, but they wouldn't be considered notable by the way WP:GNG is currently interpreted by Wikipedia consensus about game characters (which, as I stated above, is centered around the character's evolution throughout a game franchise).
 * I'm asking you to recognize that you're aware of my definition of this problem, even if you don't agree with its extent; otherwise I don't think we could continue having a rational discussion anymore. I don't know if this gaping hole in coverage of history is caused by a bias in the sources themselves or by the way editors in the Video Games Wikiproject are selecting them; but it's definitely a factor that I encountered when discussing the index with other editors of the project. The criterion that only characters that are subjects of whole articles is being actively enforced in the category. This makes impossible to create an encyclopedic index of the Wikipedia coverage for this topic - the de-facto criterion is based in whether the character currently has a Wikipedia article or not (a self-reference problem), not in any objective criterion based in the real world. Because of that, I think the current consensus for notability is not adequate as the basis for the index.
 * I'm planning an exercise to assess what is the real consensus for what's acceptable for a list on this topic (I will post it tomorrow). Meanwhile, please comment on the criterion defined below; it doesn't depend on "major" or "big name" criteria, only on categories that are classics in the story of narrative. We can't say that the consensus against the current list can be extended against that criterion because it's completely new. Diego (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously WP:SELF doesn't have to be a block if it's handled appropriately within the lede. Otherwise it wouldn't be listed as a Common SAL Selection Criterion. Notability has meaning in both the Wikipedia sphere and the real-world sphere so it's unlikely to cause any more confusion in the readership than "majority" or "significance". Using the term as it is currently used in the lede is not a problem and it has the potential to greatly reduce the list article's tendancy to become bloated with cruft. I've responded to your other concerns in the new subsection below since the argument is essentially the same. -Thibbs (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criterion
What do you think of this inclusion criterion? The idea is to explicitly avoid saying "notable characters", because then any characters without an article of their own could be argued to be removed from the list, which is less than ideal. Diego (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The list includes female video game characters that appear in a protagonist, antagonist or playable character role in a notable video game, or are otherwise notable as covered by the media.

If the list is to be kept and it to be easily maintainable I prefer the following: I think the ideal solution would be to allow for the removal of characters that bulk up the list and make it harder to read without enhancing reader navigation to the more useful articles (i.e. those on notable topics). WP:N provides such an allowance without requiring the local-article-only definition of otherwise ill-defined terms. -Thibbs (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The list includes notable female video game characters that appear...
 * What do you think of the topic-specific problem with notability that I've identified above? (i.e. characters influential to the portrayal of females are not being considered notable by the current interpretation of notability for video games) Diego (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know that these characters are influential to the portrayal of females or are otherwise important to the history of subsequent video game development? Are you reading this in reliable sources or should it just be obvious? Because if reliable sources indicate that the characters are important to the history of video games then that means that they are notable. If no reliable sources are available to back up this claim, though, then I am very comfortable with removing them from the list in the interest of increasing navigability and maintainability. -Thibbs (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can ask you the same question back. How do you know that each item in the list is notable? The only way to be sure is by consensus at a deletion discussion or when the article is assessed for quality; none of those can be done when you don't have an article for the character but only for the video game. This is the problem that you haven't recognized yet, but that it's a real behavioral problem with the way the project is currently working. By definition we lack a defined procedure to assess notability for things that are not articles; to the point that characters that definitely have reliable sources demonstrating its impact have not been recognized as notable by the project. Can you acknowledge that this is a problem or not? By your criterion Galatea should be removed, but you acknowledged that it's important to the history of interactive fiction. Diego (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I must be misunderstanding you because I'm 100% sure you're aware of WP:N. Notability can be determined by any editor at any time if he can find multiple reliable sources that cover the topic. It doesn't take an AfD, a GAN, or even a private conversation to recognize when a topic is notable. It's something any individual can recognize based on the definition of the term. And notability alone doesn't guarantee an article on the topic. There is no need, for example, to have separate articles on the notable Disney character, Chip, and his notable partner, Dale, when a single article on Chip 'n' Dale eliminates duplication and merges two intrinsically connected characters. Both are notable, but merging them makes eminent sense from a practical perspective. In a hypothetical "list of notable fictional straight men in double acts," it would be acceptable to list Chip alone because he is notable and he is the straight man. Chip's notability could be demonstrated by showing reliable sources demonstrating his notability. To give an example more pertinent to the list at hand, sources #3-6 at Pauline (Nintendo) would be sufficient in my view to show that she is notable enough to remain on this list despite the fact that the lack of non-duplicative detail on her is insufficient to allow her her own article. As far as Galatea is concerned, I'm not sure how much coverage the character has received. There's no question that the game is notable, and I would say that since the character is so tied to the game there would be no point in separating them into distinct articles even if Galatea (the character) was determined to be notable. But if she was then she could stay on the list of female video game characters (together with the sources demonstrating her notability) despite her lack of a separate article. -Thibbs (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now go and explain that to the people maintaining Category:Female characters in video games. (I agree with your analysis and have made a similar one myself (but notice the outcome: I "lost" the argument). I suppose I only wanted someone who wasn't me to arrive to the same conclusion.
 * The problem with that approach is that notability is usually decided in such cases by looking at whether there's an actual separate article for the character or not. If it's made abundantly clear that the inclusion criterion is the one you describe and not the one is currently used by the project, I wouldn't be so head-on opposed to notability as the inclusion criterion. But note how you've just shifted the problem and just opening a new can of worms - now the inclusion criterion for Galatea is that "she is so tied to a notable video game that they can't be separated". You were against poorly defined criteria? At least if we include protagonists and antagonists, we have external reliable sources to ratify the criterion. Diego (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If other editors are determining notability by looking for Wikipedia articles on the topic then they are very confused about the rules here. I'd direct them to WP:N which clearly shows that reliable third-party sources define the concept. AfD demonstrates that Wikipedia articles currently exist on all kinds of non-notable topics and Wikipedia is an ongoing project so articles haven't yet been written on every notable topic. The existence of a Wikipedia article is at best an indication that the topic is notable. Of course there is nothing to bar the use of this as an inclusion criterion, but it's not the same as "notability" - it's generally a stricter criterion. On Galatea, of course the decision to merge or split character from game is subjective. It's a matter of editorial discretion instead of a hard rule. But whether or not a character like Galatea should appear in a "list of notable fictional female video game characters" is not up to editorial discretion. It's up to whether or not she's verifiably notable. That's the reason for imposing the notability inclusion criterion. Using notability as an inclusion criterion is a long-term solution allowing the article to be cleaned up by neutral third parties when the list gets out of hand whereas using loose terms like "major" or "significant" requires the article to have maintainers (something too close to WP:OWN for me to be very comfortable with) and has the potential of leading to protracted arguments over the inclusion or exclusion of every entry that one editor feels is "major" and that the other doesn't. Not all list articles require this criterion of course - there's not much potential for "list of minor paracetamol brands" or "list of characters in Chrono Cross" to become morasses of cruft since WP:V can be used to remove nonsense entries - but for inherently large topics like "fictional examples of X" we need some long-term way other than the use of case-by-case consensus and resident maintainer-editors to prevent or to remedy the accumulation of cruft. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And then we are back at square one. If you use the Wikipedia definition of notability, it doesn't create a good one-on-one match with the impact that particular characters have in the genre; even if that impact is verifiable, you can't tell how much of it is because of the character and how much for the video game, unless you resort again to editorial discretion. Lots of valid entries will be excluded because their fame is overshadowed by the games they appear in, while other characters that aren't that influential (cardboard cookie-cutter playable fighters anyone?) will get in because they appear at lots of franchises; but fame is not notability and that's not a balanced portrayal of the topic, it's too random. No, the inclusion criterion should be focused on something specific to the topic at hand - a sort of specific notability guideline for video game characters (female or otherwise - with a section about "notability for being female" to use at this particular list). The GNG is simply too generic to provide good focus as the main and only test for exclusion. A good specific guideline would allow the long-term support that you talk about, not centralized in a few editors, but would be based on the defining characteristics of video game characterization.
 * Galatea is a very good example because it's directly related to the topic, the portrayal of female characters and the influence that good characterization and writing can have on the storytelling at IF, and should definitely be found in an encyclopedic coverage of the topic because it's relevant to it. But it's hard to find direct coverage of the character as such, not enough to show independent notability (which is a quite hard criterion to meet) - all coverage of the character is intermixed with the game structure, the style, the multiple endings. We could try an IAR exception for a few characters like this, but then you couldn't avoid a topic-wide bias and imbalanced inclusion. Diego (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No editorial discretion is involved with lists where WP:N is used as a bright-line inclusion criterion. If there are no sources covering the character then the character is not historically relevant. This isn't a question of trying to figure out how to argue that a character is notable despite a lack of sources. If no sources exist then they're not notable. I hate to say it but the Truth isn't really all that important here. This isn't intended as a forum for publishing original ideas that are not reliably sourceable. Your suggestion of "a section about 'notability for being female'" sounds great to me, although it's actually a stricter criterion than simple notability (under which female characters notable irrespective of their sex would also be included). I'm not sure how I feel about your suggestion of independent notability, though. On the one hand independent notability is not listed as a CSC, but on the other hand it does seem like a "list of notable X" should be kept separate from members of a "list of X in notable Y." In other words, "notable female video game characters" is a different set than the much broader "females in notable video games". But I think this issue is kind of tangential and would best be saved for after the AfD is closed. -Thibbs (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not about "THE TRUTH" - it's about WP:VERIFIABILITY, which is as good and well-defined and "bright-line" criterion as notability, and much easier to assess. For some reason you don't find enough that a reliable source has clearly identified a character as relevant to the topic and provides an academical description providing due weight, it's required that "multiple secondary, independent sources address the subject directly in detail", to the point that we could write a whole article independent of the game. That's something that I really don't get, everybody insists on tying the encyclopedic description of this topic to the notion of Wikipedians being able to write a whole article. How is this guideline to write clear prose, this "article-bility" related to the encyclopedic properties of female characters, it's a mistery to me. (I'm not suggesting independent notability of the character from the game as the criterion - I'm actually opposing it for being unencyclopedic, in the sense that it's completely irrelevant to the topic). A "notability for being female" would be an improvement in the sense that it would be a whole new ad-hoc definition directly related to the topic, not tied to the GNG that is about volume of coverage and not quality nor relevance (and thus not necessarily stricter; like other SNGs, it can include items that don't pass GNG). Diego (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. In other circumstances maybe could agree with your analysis of the distinction between "list of notable X" and "list of X in notable Y", although I'm not sure that it's very useful. But given that this is a "list of X in notable Y" after all, the distinction is tangential and should also be saved for later. As much as anyone say that there are zillions of female VG characters, the history of them is not as famous, widespread and well-studied to guarantee that there will be enough sources to write an article for every character relevant to it. But there will be enough sources to verify what characters are the ones that provided the highest impact. Diego (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's really rather hard to imagine a female video game character for whom reliable sources exist sufficient to demonstrate that she provided "high impact" on gaming and yet who isn't notable herself. If the objection is that she should only be supported by one instead of multiple RSes then I question how much of an impact she may really have had. If the objection is that she should be able to be supported by RSes only mentioning her trivially along with other "high impact" females rather than significantly, then I'd imagine that other RSes actually explaining her impact might be readily available as well. In fact almost any character who is important in a real world sense will probably show up as notable in the RSes. The only kind of character I know of that is "high impact," "important," or "formative" but who simultaneously lacks more than one RS covering her in depth is one that I merely believe on a personal level to be notable but who isn't according to the GNG. The reason anyone is trying to come up with a way to narrow the scope of the article to only include characters that reliable sources demonstrate to be notable is because without this reduction in scope the article is unmanageably large and difficult to navigate. You clearly disagree and that's obvious. But it's a matter of opinion at this point. You don't think it is too large a scope. Most of the others do. I don't know what else to say. I had hoped tightening the inclusion criteria might provide a workable compromise but it seems like there is a lot of resistance to the idea. -Thibbs (talk) 00:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Another break
Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * strong keep Overall subject is extremely notable, with multiple books discussing female video game characters. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive, and the list serves as a home for characters which are not notable enough for a stand alone article - a purpose for which lists are EXPLICITLY created by wiki policy.
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=0PKSFHwhTGYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=female+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6AvnULTHKIb-iQKNyIG4DQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=female%20video%20game&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Obxbis3vtK4C&pg=PA240&dq=female+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6AvnULTHKIb-iQKNyIG4DQ&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=female%20video%20game&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=jKr0jWY8FLkC&pg=PA166&dq=female+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-wvnUNHjJMqjigLj2oGgDA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=female%20video%20game&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=oe0zNalKkTgC&pg=PA353&dq=female+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-wvnUNHjJMqjigLj2oGgDA&ved=0CD0Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=female%20video%20game&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=FEB1q_HyvN4C&pg=PA408&dq=female+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-wvnUNHjJMqjigLj2oGgDA&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=female%20video%20game&f=false
 * No one really contests that the general topic of "females in videogames" is notable, that respective article, it is, we just don't know if it's right to have such an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Using criteria like your aforementioned "for characters that aren't notable enough for a standalone article" makes for a ridiculously large scope... Sergecross73   msg me   17:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The list doesn't match any of the criteria defined at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's not a summary-only description of works (it includes context and significance to the real world -the character's role-, it's not lyrics, and it's not a listing of statistics). Can you detail how this list is not WP:discriminate? The problem hasn't been explained yet beyond it grows too much or I don't like how it looks. Diego (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An indiscriminate collection of information is one gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner - Using the idea of "for characters that aren't notable enough for a standalone article", that strikes me as rather thoughtless. (The only distinction is that they wouldn't be notable enough for an article, which isn't a very good "distinction".) Keep in mind, I was talking to him about his comment, who is talking about the current article up for deletion, it's not a judgement towards your proposal for a completely different article. (I don't believe I've ever claimed anything about "not liking it", so I'll assume that was just a misinterpretation on your part.)  Sergecross73   msg me   17:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A question here, is this a list for characters who are notable for being a female character in a leading role (Samus), or a list of characters who are in a leading role who just happen to be female (Amaterasu...). If the first, there needs to be reliable sources that show that they are notable for being a female hero (which has become a videogame cliche) . If the second, this list is pointless and is almost infinitely big, because almost every videogame (other than FPSs) has a female character in a leading role. Jucchan (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you define such complex test as "notable for being a female character in a leading role"? Certainly not with WP:Notability, which is a test for "can/can't have an article". If you meant "important" instead of "notable", other editors above have called such criteria "too personal and arbitrary". Diego (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists lists which contain (or are entirely comprised of) non-notable entries are explicitly approved. 18:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but the scope here would be ridiculous. List of characters in Chrono Cross is a perfectly acceptable list populated entirely by non-notable characters...but there's a relatively finite number of characters to discuss. Any "non-notable female video character" is enourmous in scope though. You could add 20+ from Chrono Cross alone, 1 single game amongs thousands and thousands in existence that contain a female character. Sergecross73   msg me   18:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that the minimum criteria for this list is that the game itself be notable - it would be perfectly acceptable to create a "list of characters" for every game scattered stand-alone. Why is merging them unacceptable? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 'cause that a LOT of characters... Jucchan (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's like proposing "Why don't we merge all notable video game articles because they're all notable?" It'd be a massive mess. Sergecross73   msg me   18:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The inclusion criteria is really confusing me here, apparently, any female character in a notable game can be on the list. Almost every game has some sort of female supporting character, damsel in distress, or villain. Characters on this list are there just because someone thought they should be there. Who says that Daisy(Mario series) shouldn't be on the list? Or any other female character like Palutena(Kid Icarus), Epona(LoZ), Rosalina(Mario), or even Goombella(Paper Mario TTYD)? Epona and Goombella are "minor", but they satisfy the conditions, don't they? As do every single female protagonist, antagonist, side kick, animal, etc. in every single game! Also, GLaDOS isn't technically female, it's a robot... Jucchan (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can anybody please explain what is so outrageous about that possibility? The topic has been found notable as a group by a walth of reliable sources, so all those characters are verifiably part of a notable class. Letting readers find them is thus "encyclopedic" (whatever that means) by a direct application of the notability for lists policy. Given that those characters don't need to be listed at this page, and it's enough to point to those separate lists containing them, I fail to see what is the problem that so many people are so strongly trying to avoid. Diego (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes-I'm aware that LISTN allows for restricting a large list to only notable items. But it's not mandatory and to be done "at discretion", which means that there should be a good reason to; this is what I'm asking for. But since there's a reason not to limit the list this way (that I explained above), I can't see what could be the cause for that limit. Diego (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's going to attract all sorts of unencyclopedic WP:GAMECRUFT entries. Ridiculous people who love to push the boundaries are going to add "generic Female Toad (Mario) character 1-50" from Paper Mario, or, "Lisa", the shop girl who sells items to characters in the town of Termina from Chrono Cross, which consititues .1% of the overal plot and 0% significance to the game on a whole, but under the vague description given by Gaijin, there wouldn't really be any grounds to contest people adding such trivial things. Anywhere between Lara Croft to "Lisa the bit role shopkeep" would be fair game. It'd turn in a massive unencyclopedic mess, because of the incredibly large/vague scope. Sergecross73   msg me  20:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Although gender representation in video games is notable, the specific instances, which are limitless, are not. Just listing every single female character you can think of creates an extremely long and meaningless list. The list should be limited to characters that are notable for being female, not "another one of those cliche female fighters or supporting characters". Amaterasu is female, but she is not notable because she is female, only because she is the protagonist of Okami. A character that would be notable is Samus, because it shocked the video game community when it was revealed that Samus was female. Now, almost every video game tries to balance the number of male and female characters. Imagine all the female characters in one list, all Fire Emblem characters, Final Fantasy characters, Pokémon characters, Mario characters, etc. etc. etc. etc. Such list would be seemingly infinitely long, hard to navigate, with inclusion based completely on opinion, and even make it harder to find the character readers are looking for. Jucchan (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCLEANUP - We can easily use our editorial discretion to limit the criteria - playable characters, or significant NPCs. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Under the article you are proposing, I don't understand what grounds you'd be able to remove them. They are female characters, and that's all the article requires. And that leads eventually back to the argument I have going with Diego, where I say that while it could be possible to find an encyclopedic list somewhere in there, so many inclusion criteria restrictions would have to be placed that it would cease to be the same thing anymore. It'd be like if "List of ham sandwiches" was deemed non-notable, but "List of types of hams" was. You wouldn't propose moving one into the other. You'd delete the first and create the second, because they're very different things with slight connections. Sergecross73   msg me   20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We may create whatever criteria we want for inclusion as part of our editorial discretion via consensus. Such criteria is not WP:OR, as we are not redefining the topic, we are just defining the subset we wish to discuss in a particular article. There is clearly a middle ground between "Only blue linked interdependently notable characters" and "Every female that ever appeared on screen for one millisecond". Gaijin42 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding on how long lists are handled by the community. A wide inclusion criteria doesn't mean that all characters will be included in one plaing, long list in a single page. Characters passing the criteria will still be grouped and moved to separate pages as described by WP:SALAT - and you don't need a more restrictive criterion to organize the list in that way. You simply fork the parts of the list that are too big to a separate page per WP:SPLIT and point to the new list in a See also section in the main page. Do this several time and it turns into a "list of lists", just like the Manual of Style recognizes as the community recognized way to handle this situation.

Sergecross73 described an interesting case above - the list of characters from Chrono Cross don't need to be merged at all with List of female video game characters - it's enough that the first be included somewhere in the list or its sublists. But if you restrict the criterion to only notable characters, the link to Chrono Cross won't be included and a reader interested on the topic won't be able to navigate to it and find that this game's article has a verifiable description of female characters.

Above I talked with Thibbs about the need for a kind of "specific notability" criterion for the list that is based on properties relevant to portrayal of females. I'm planning a WP:straw poll to find out what's the detailed position of editors (beyond a simple "support" or "oppose" for the whole list) for each of the main subjects in the current conversation. I'll include questions about the overall notability of the topic (of female characters as a group), the possibility to define a new inclusion criterion for this topic (whether at this list or a new one), the use of GNG notability as the inclusion criterion, or some properties relevant to female characters that could be used as part of a new criterion. If you have some ideas for more questions that you'd want to see in the straw poll, let's us now and we'll add them to it. I think this will help the poor admin that must do the closing to get a better idea of where the consensus (or lack thereof) lies. Diego (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your proposal on specific notability criterion falls well outside of the scope of this AFD. It sounds like something more that Wikiproject Video Games or even Wikipedia as a whole needs to come to an agreement on. Hasn't there been enough discussion already? It's been over 2 weeks and this discussion is way out of control as it is. With none of the "Keeps" being on the same page on how to handle this, I feel like we need an Admin to close this, delete it, and then you can work on a your extensive proposal/criteria stuff at WP:VG or something. Sergecross73   msg me   23:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The topic of the list is "female vg characters by role", and this does not meet WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. I'm sure "female vg characters" does, hence we have Gender representation in video games. However, this list is indiscriminate and inclusion criteria seem to be "mentioned in RS". There are hundreds if not thousands of examples, and this basically fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I agree this may be useful to some readers, but that is not Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I would support converting this to a list of characters we have an article for, to be a navigation guide among other things. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:43, 5 January 2013 (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.