Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silent protagonist (2nd nomination)


 * 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 as unsourced original research. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Silent protagonist

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

This article survived an AfD in September 2007. At the time, the main complaint was that it had no sources, and appeared to be original research. 18 months later, this is still true: there is not a single secondary source in the article, and it is composed entirely of original research. Essentially, the article consists of nothing more than an extended list of examples of things -- mostly videogames -- that Wikipedia editors believe contain "silent protagonists." This is original research in the extreme. The term "silent protagonist" does come up in searches of scholarly literature (this came up in the last AfD), but is generally being used descriptively, not as a term of art. In other words, there's no apparent connection between the uses cited in the previous AfD and the topic of this aticle ("My favorite videogames that have characters without dialogue"). This article has had more than enough time for some reliable source to have been found. None have been forthcoming. None will be forthcoming. We should delete this as original research. Nandesuka (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Keep. Sometimes, people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it, but the deletion is very extreme solution. I think that "silent protagonist is video game object" is not problem. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Zero information is preferred over incorrect and misleading information. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Protagonist. This does not appear to be a term used in the industry; the results returned are more likened to eye-catching headlines. Gary King (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag talk  contribs  08:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Gary King, but don't merge all of this content, or delete if this term is seen not to be used at all. It's clearly got a load of original research, there are no sources, and it contains far too many examples for an encyclopedia entry. As it stands this is just not suitable for Wikipedia.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, using videogames as sources is not original research &mdash; it's source-based research. It's not original research to describe someone as a protagonist and it's obvious when someone is silent. And see the sources found on Google Scholar and Google Books. AFD is not for cleanup. The Protagonist article has one source so I wouldn't favor a merge into that article. --Pixelface (talk) 06:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A textbook example of a bad article, and the nominator's reasoning accurately describes why this should go. Quale (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Perfectly encyclopaedic. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. Google scholar link plus things like this attest a good article is possible. User:Krator (t c) 12:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even read the "Google scholar" link? Which of the books in which the words "silent" and "protagonist" happen to appear do you contend support the text in this article, which has nothing at all to do with any of those sources?   Even a cursory examination of that search demonstrates that its connection with the claimed topic of this article approximates zero. Nandesuka (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is whether an article can be writen about the topic silent protagonist &mdash; not whether the sources from Google scholar directly support the information currently in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My question stands. Which of the links in that search do you contend support an article on the topic "silent protagonist", as distinguished from articles that happen, by coincidence, to contain the words "silent protagonist"?  Nandesuka (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources on the talk page are a good starting point. --Pixelface (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Did you understand the Scholar link?  I think I'm pretty up to date on critical parlance, and this isn't an entry at all.  "Silent protagonist" is not a genre.  In fiction, it's not possible, as a limited 3rd POV would usually provide thoughts, and if there are neither thoughts nor words, then it's not the protagonist (please look that up).  This article is pure OR and fan stuff.  There is no salient critical distinction, no contextual illumination, no shared attributes, just a list of what the authors think.  Geogre (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordon Freeman is a silent protagonist. --Pixelface (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In a video game! There is no scholarly usage of "silent protagonist."  There is nothing but accidental combinations of terms for it anywhere but this fan-generated original research.  Do we have an article for Eskimo mudflaps, for Deaf Artist, or, most of all, Mute Villain?  All of these generate Scholar "hits," and none of them is about the term.  Pure OR.  Geogre (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about The Silent Protagonist: The Unifying Presence of Landscape in Willa Cather's My Antonia? --Pixelface (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about it? The landscape is the silent (because it's an abstraction) main character in the fiction.  It's no more than saying, "The wilderness is the true protagonist in her fiction."  I.e. it is no more compelling than those Eskimo Mudflaps.  Adjective + noun is not a usage of a phrase as a term of art.  Again: only here, because only possible with visual media.  Geogre (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but get rid of all the bogosity. It's plainly a widely used and agreed upon term about computer gaming. Reference to it outside that context seems entirely the product of someone's pretensions. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So if it's "widely used" it should be easy to come up with some reliable sources, right? Where are they?  Nandesuka (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno-- try the links on this page. It's obvious that we cannot expect conventional academic references for something like this. Mangoe (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, the links on that page are to previous versions of this very Wikipedia article.  Can you seriously not see the problem here?  We have thousands upon thousands of articles on video-game related topics that do refer to reliable sources.  I fail to see why this one is so special that we should ignore our core content policies Nandesuka (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no secondary sources. Fails WP:N.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far from providing a reason to keep the article, the Google Scholar/Books hits actually show that the term isn't used to mean anything more than the sum of its parts. The article is unsalvageable original research. EALacey (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but Cleanup - this is an important device, commonly used in many games such as Bioshock, Halo and Half-Life. Although the term itself isn't as commonly used, I was able to dig out some opinion columns such as Gamernode, Kotaku and a guest article on Gamasutra. I've also managed to locate some fanbased uses as this animation series at Newgrounds and this promoted article at Destructid. While the term is not in everyday parlance, I am sure that the article can be cleaned up to remove the POV and OR and make this an an article on an obvious subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. AfD isn't cleanup, and there's no deadline we need to meet. The topic is a valid one. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:42, 14 March 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.