Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razputin


 * 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   redirect to Psychonauts. History will be intact, so any information that can be reliably sourced can be merged at editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Razputin

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

This character does not establish notability independent of its game. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and smerg into Psychonauts --Pmedema (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of RS for this character. I'll get back to this in a few days when I have time, but some links are in the "list of characters" AFD for this game. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, , and isn't bad.  Brief bits: , , , , and more.  Hobit (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect: Most game articles really only need the one article to contain its plot. Two, depending on circumstances, is usually too much for a single game, and three is plain overkill in most (but not all) cases. I'm not seeing anything in the sources provided that indicates this article can go above and beyond being a repeat of the plot summary. Nifboy (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - While Hobit has found sources on the reception of the character, I don't see a really strong article coming out of this: the details that are not gameguide or OR-ish are either already covered in Psychonauts or can be easily added (including the few bits on development of the character, and any specific review reaction to the character). --M ASEM  13:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak Redirect to Psychonauts (plausible search term) — I was originally inclined to agree with merging to Psychonauts, but I am taking in to account WP:SIZE implications (even though that itself is a very weak argument for deletion). However, pending the outcome of Articles for deletion/List of characters in Psychonauts, I would unconditionally support a merge to List of characters in Psychonauts. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Update — List of characters in Psychonauts has been deleted, so I will fully support a redirect to Psychonauts. MuZemike  ( talk ) 15:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect as a perfectly legit search term. I'd like to keep, but I can't find sources, so dispose of it by redirecting it. -- Sabre (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The protagonist of a history is always a valid article, simply because the other characters are unsuited for receiving a article for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRFraga (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Merge the sourced information, snip out the gamecruft. Has not been the subject of significant, independent coverage. Several good sources there - The PC Zone interview, for example - but ideally we need multiple, substantial coverage to warrant a seperate article. Use the above sources to write a paragraph about the character in the game's main article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to Psychonauts as lacking enough coverage to write a reliable and objective article. A stand-alone article without adequate sources would just invite large amounts of WP:GAMECRUFT. A better approach is to merge it to a notable article, and let that section be gradually expanded. If it gets large enough and is supported by enough reliable third-party sources, then perhaps a split would be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.