Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon "Ghost" Riley


 * 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 Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. As the article originally was. The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Simon "Ghost" Riley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable fictional character; gregarious copyright violations abound — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I searched three phrases in the top section and found no indication that it is a copyvio. I suggest that the nominator either provide specifics (in which case this should be speedied away) or else strike "gregarious (sic.) copyright violations abound" from the nomination. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the weapons paragraph is directly from the COD Wikia. First sentence of merchandising as well. The article's creator has admitted in several places to copying content from both Wikia and Giant Bomb, though with some editing. Originally the article was directly sourced to Wikia throughout, and one entire section is covered by a COPYVIO template right now. (Separate issue, but that template is past it's one week period anyways). I'm not entirely clear on the copyright issues, existant or not, to using Wikia as a direct source, but the content is certainly copied from there. -- ferret (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikia content is released under CC-BY-SA, so any copyright concern with it can easily be fixed by noting the original author(s) in an edit summary or on the talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Quite notable, actually. Not that much, but enough. Also Also, why no nomination simply for redirect? --Niemti (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. He is a protagonist, so, thus, meets WP:VG/GL. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * VP:VG/GL does not say that just because a character is a protagonist that an article is appropriate. Being a protagonist likely helps supports the idea that a stand-alone could be made, but it still has to meet the more general WP:GNG guidelines. --M ASEM  (t) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict with masem when replying) WP:VG/GL makes no mention of "protagonists = notable". The only mention of "protagonist" at all is in an example of how to rewrite jargon. Could you please clarify what portion of the guidelines you're referring to? From what I can tell, the guidelines are specific in following WP:N and that spin off articles must have "significant" coverage in appropriate RS's. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look at the WP:VG/GL and could find nothing there that even remotely suggest that protagonists automatically get an article. The only relevant thing I could find was listed in the Inappropriate content section and that was Non-notable articles and spinouts: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable. Since this statement directly contradicts the protagonists are always notable statement we should disregard that argument unless the user who suggested it can find something I missed.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Semi-weak Delete - There are no reliable sources listed, reliable sources search turns up info on a possible spinoff, but I'm not seeing a lot on the reception of the character himself. --Teancum (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect This article was originally a redirect to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, where the character first appeared. When the editor who replaced the redirect with the (mostly) Wikia content did so, I brought up notability and inheritance issues. That is, being in a notable game or book does not make the character notable. A great deal of the article's current content is either trivia, or suitable for merger into the game/comic (Which mostly include those details already). -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you even still talking about deleting, instead of arguing for redirecting? Also I originally tagged it for notability (and for copyvio too), but I changed my mind. It wasn't me. I've tagged it for a rewrite, also copyvio. --Niemti (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no guideline that "protagonists are always notable". According to our actual guidelines, notability requires verifiable evidence. There are no third party sources to WP:verify notability. Thus, delete it. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are everyone ignoring me or what? And also once again, WHY ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT DELETING ANYTHING and not just redirecting. --Niemti (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an AFD, that is why we are discussing deletion. Even if the deletion is done, a redirect can be created afterwards. -- ferret (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But WHY are you talking about deletion? WHY would anyone want to DELETE this article? I just don't get it. Everyone else has been always redirecting such articles, and me too (like this recent redirect spree of mine on unreferenced James Bond characters, isn't it normal? By deleting, you're deleting the content. You're making it so much harder to recreate the article if someone (like me) would attempt it later. --Niemti (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the original editor who opened the AFD felt it was warranted? The whole point for the AFD is for other editors to weight in and create a consensus. If they agree with the AFD, then the page is deleted. If they don't, then it's not. You have made clear your view that the page should be kept or redirected. The AFD was opened on two fronts: Notability and copyvio. The copyvio reasoning has been shot down. Notability so far appears to be lacking, with two editors not seeing enough and calling for deletion, one calling for a redirect (Myself), and one editor (yourself) calling for keep. The second keep, from Presidentman, is invalid, as it argued to keep based on a non-existent policy. Arguing with everyone on why an AFD even exists is not helpful. -- ferret (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing "why an AFD even exists", but why would anyone want to delete this article. Or support it. --Niemti (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems to be pretty clearly stated above: Non-notable fictional character. You can certainly disagree with that, but that is the reason. -- ferret (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An that's all? Then it's first time I've seen people wanting to DELETE all the content for a trivial reason, instead of just redirecting for a time being, as usual (I've redirected a plenty of much worse articles, but no content was pernamently really lost in the process), and so I still wonder. --Niemti (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem much reason to continue discussing this if you view notability as trivial to Wikipedia, so I'll simply wait for other editors to throw in their views. -- ferret (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a trivial reason for deleting, instead of merging or just redirecting. I've tagged this article for copyvio in one section, but that was just for a simple removal of the copied content and writing it properly, and even if the whole article was copied and it was a problem (turned out that not really) I'd have it either just redirected or rewritten (or redirected and rewritten later). --Niemti (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | squeal _ 16:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)




 * Redirect. Probably the best source for notability is this one, and it really is just discussing rumours.  Insufficient evidence for standalone notability, but a redirect makes perfect sense. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Severe lack of Internet sources, majority of them are just rumours and forums, no real reason to keep this article.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And what is the "real reason" to delete and not to merge/redirect? --Niemti (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well fair enough, redirect is a more suitable approach but the article itself isn't needed. Peace be with you :)--RedBullWarrior (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect easy one here. Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 06:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect as it will link someone to a Call of Duty article which will then give them some info on the character.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2012 (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.