Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Resident Evil 4


 * 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 no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Weapons of Resident Evil 4

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

Contested prod. Person who contested thinks this falls under the Arbcom injunction against the deletion of fictional characters and episodes but I strongly disagree, as this is not about any fictional character but about a handful of weapons in a video game. Fails WP:LIST, WP:GUIDE, WP:NOT. Redfarmer (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the nominator. This is too much detail for a single video game. Bláthnaid  15:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep after Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's improvements. Excellent work :-) Bláthnaid  14:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :)  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - moved to capitalised game name, per WP:NC. Will (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge to Resident Evil 4 (see further down). Take your pick from WP:NOT, but I'll go with "Wikipedia is not a game guide". PC78 (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still delete following improvements by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Sorry, but it's still a game guide. Worth a mention in the Resident Evil 4 article, perhaps, but it's basically just unencyclopedic cruft. PC78 (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Game guides do not have sections on reception and a host of reliable secondary sources as this article does.  Also, please see here and here.  Finally, you already voted to delete above. Please do not vote twice in an AfD, i.e. having the bold around delete appears as a second vote. if you want to add a comment, say "I still feel" or something, but not in bold. Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kindly don't strike out part of my comment; AfD is not a "vote", and in any case I trust the closing admin will be able to count. And don't dismiss my comment as WP:IDON'TLIKEIT (which it clearly isn't) when I am quite clearly still of the opinion that it fails WP:NOT (which it does). The "Reception" section offers little of significance, while the refs themselves seem to be mostly just gameguides and are thus very weak; I still don't see any real world notability that would warrant an article such as this. I appreciate the effort you have put into improving the article, but it really is still just gamecruft. PC78 (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not strike out your comment, someone else did. Your opinion here is clearly an "I don't like it", because the article passes our guideline overwhelmingly.  The reception section offers much of signifance and the strong references go beyond gameguides.  The weapons that appear in a game, as a controller, and with action figures and that have been covered in reliable sources have real world notability to millions of game players and magazine readers worldwide and it therefore warrants an article such as this one.  Thank you for appreciating my effort, but again, please consider that article has been improved, is only a few days old, and thus we do not need to rush to delete it.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the misunderstanding. And by all means interpret my comments however you wish, but it seems that you and I are not in agreement about what passes for notable. Credit where credit is due - this article has come a long way since this AfD began, and for that I'll change my stance to merge rather than delete. But I still think you're clutching at straws to establish this as a standalone article. The "Creation" section is essentially one big quote which poses possible copyright problems; "In game weapons" is pure game guide, whichever way you look at it (and in spite of the references); "Chainsaw controller" and "Toys" both relate more to the game as a whole rather than this specific aspect of it, and even the "Reception" section as well to a point. In short, I still don't think it's enough. Perhaps you'd be better off with an article that covered weapons in the series as a whole rather than just this one game? PC78 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Polite disagreement between two editors is perfectly fine; so it's cool. :) And thank you for the willingness to change your stance and acknowledge the improvements.  My main feelings are just that the article is still less than a week old and in that short amount of time we have been able to do a good deal with the article.  I would simply appreciate at least a little more time to see if I can track down any additional sources, maybe find more fair use images, etc. and then even if the consensus is to merge, at that point we will already have better referenced and written content to merge as well.  As I indicated as a reply to someone else in this discussion, I am not opposed to and would be willing to help build an article on weapons in the series as a whole.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not covered by the injunction per nom, and per WP:NOT. JuJube (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't covered by the Arbcom injunction - Resident Evil 4 is a video game, not a television show, and the injunction only covers articles about a "television series episode or character". Pure game-guide material anyway. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Close as covered by the injunction Consensus at the talk page of the arbcom and at similar afds is that the injuction is to be interpreted broadly. The arguments for deletion here are just the same as the ones being discussed there. DGG (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. The injunction only mentions television shows and characters; the injunction would have to be rather broad to be interpreted as also covering articles about weapons appearing in video games. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The arbcom has not extended the injunction to include items or video games. -- Ned Scott 12:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, please explain to me how rocket launchers and rifles can be construed to be characters in a fictional television series? Redfarmer (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There isn't even anything unique about these weapons that would warrant a mention on the main article (except perhaps as a minor sentence that says "includes typical weapons like a gun and a rocket launcher"). -- Ned Scott 12:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and maybe keep Some interesting new content has been added that is worth keeping. I would even support just a plain old keep to see how far this can go, and revisiting discussion on this later on. -- Ned Scott 02:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Needs to establish notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the above opinion has changed as addressed here. And to repeat, I greatly respect Blathnaid, Judgesurreal777, and Ned Scott for their class and objectivity in acknowledging the efforts to improve the article.  Bravo to all three of you!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as notable aspect of a major game. I will work on adding published sources to the article as soon as I finish typing this message here, as I know I have at least one published reliable source to add, but may have others.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: I have thoroughly revised the article by adding published sources (GamePro, BradyGames, etc.), a photograph I took of the special chainsaw controller (the weapons in Resident Evil 4 are notable, because it is the only game ever to have a chainsaw controller made based on the weapons), cleaned up some of the grammar, etc. The article now looks substantially better than it did when nominated and before my post above.  Please compare the old version with the new version thanks to my nearly 20 major revision edits.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, this AfD is also mentioned here, which is how I came across it. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT a gameguide, gives undue weight to a minor aspect of gameplay. A short summary of weapons in-game can be added to Resident Evil 4, what are we talking here, a couple of sentences? RE4's weapons don't need a seperate article any more than Resident Evil's, Resident Evil Code Veronica's etc. unless there is significant coverage, out-of-universe information etc. It's of little surprise that a strategy guide book has details of the weapons, who else is saying what? See   . Someoneanother 18:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article now contains references beyond just a game guide, but also GamePro, GameSpot, IGN, etc. and the fact that a special and unique chainsaw controller was made for the game indicates that it is a major aspect of gameplay. Even if other similar articles were deleted, they may not have had the sourcing that this article now has, and besides consensus can change.  Also, there were at least some keep "votes" in the discussions linked above.  See, , , , , , etc.  Finally, we can afford to have a little leeway with Resident Evil articles, as notability and interest is unquestionable: Game Informer (the self-proclaimed "World's #1 Computer & Video Game Magazine" according to its covers) calls the "multi-million dollar franchise" of Resident Evil "Capcom's largest" and refers to "the original Resident Evil" as "one of the most important games of all time."  See "Enter The Survival Horror... A Resident Evil Retrospective," Game Informer 174 (October 2007): 132. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Either the secondary sources exist to create a proper article or they don't, the notability of Resident Evil collectively does not have any bearing on every component of the series. Sources make articles, assertions of this or that being important do not. The controller is not an aspect of gameplay, it's a peripheral which was sold separately, the chainsaw is not a player-controlled weapon which is what this article is about. Consensus can change, the comments above show that in the case of writing GameFAQs style game-component lists it has not. If the weapons themselves have been the subject of genuinely significant coverage then I'd be happy to switch to keep, but as it stands now the article is no more appropriate and resembles a coatrack. Someoneanother 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources have already been added to create a proper article. As a subarticle of a notable series, the notability of Resident Evil passes along to this article of relevant information that would weigh down one of the main articles.  A controller by definition is an aspect of gameplay.  The article is about weapons of Resident Evil 4; it does not say "In-game weapons of Resident Evil 4" in the article's title.  Thus, a chainsaw is a weapon and the controller is a means by which such weapons can be played.  The weapons themselves have been covered in such notable magazines as GamePro.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is game guide material that can be summed up within prose. The current sources only add on to the game guide aspect, so they do not help. TTN (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The current sources included reviews and articles and therefore do not add to the game guide aspect. The article can be improved like all articles can, but it has improved substantially since the nomination and so there is no longer a good reason to delete it.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When you show how they fit into this, I'll change my vote, but until then, this is no better than any other policy failing article. Articles that fail policies need to be removed if they cannot be improved. TTN (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a SOFIXIT? The sources that are reviews and articles are provided.  You can help by assisting us in using the out of universe material from those sources to improve the article further.  If nothing else, we have established notability and verfiability, i.e. enough to "save" the article.  Now we just need to make it even better.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not how this works. You need to provide real world information and it needs to be significant enough to not be able to fit within the main article stylistically. If it can be found within the sources, provide it. That is all. Stop trying to wikilawyer and just do it. TTN (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is exactly how this site works. Wikipedia is a community of editors who work together to improve articles.  I made around twenty edits with improvements to the article, including taking a photograph, uploading it, looking through a published strategy guide, doing a dogpile.com search, and proofreading the article.  Instead of simply seeing this discussion and the article in the previous condition and voting "delete", I spent several minutes working to improve the article.  If you are willing to "keep" the article in some circumtance as you said above, then instead of debating with me, you should help me to improve the article with the same amount of energy and time.  As the arbitration case seems to suggest, we all need to work together more and I would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to make a good faith effort to help with the improvement of this article.  I set the improvement ball in motion, and would again, just appreciate some assistance refining the improvements.  The onus is never on just one editor to "save" an article.  Please help in this colloborative venture and if you ever need help improving a different article, please let me know as I would be happy to do what I can as well as that is how I work, i.e. doing what I can to help make things better.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The cleanup process is separate from the AfD process. You're free to show how the article can stand and convince others that it is able to stand, but to say that we should drop this whole thing because you think that the article is improvable is sort of against this process. Once you show that this is a viable topic, we'll talk about improving it. TTN (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not conviningly demonstrated why you think the article is not improvable, especially considering that it has been improved considerably and that assertions of notability backed up by reliable sources have been included in the article. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has not been improved (sources being cited!=notability being asserted), and like the hundreds of articles just like this that have been removed, it asserts no potential. It is just a game element, and should be treated as such. I realize that inclusionists like to be optimistic, but this really is the bad type of inclusionism. There is a technique called being concise, which is very necessary when writing an encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I made over twenty edits today, including adding an image, correcting grammar, adding reliable website and published game magazines as sources, asserted notability, etc. I have in effect made a serious effort that took a good amount of my free time today fulfilling the various requests you had as conditions for keeping the article.  Saying it has not been improved is dishonest and ignores reality.  As my dad said to me the other night, on an online encyclopedia with an astonishing amount of disk space, we do not have to be concise when we can effectively provide much more information than a regular encyclopedia.  Plus, Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, but also a specialized encyclopedia, almanac, etc.  Thus, it is not fair to only compare and contrast it with other encyclopedias and paper ones at that.  We are operating on wikipedic terms, not encyclopedic, as Wikipedia, according to the Five pillars, is more than just an encyclopedia and is not a paper encyclopedia.  Finally, for what it is worth, while I may be more inclusionist, then not, I do have standards and am willing to suggest deletion of articles as I did a little bit ago today.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing worth keeping here: unencyclopedic gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see here and here. In any event, the article passes Five pillars, in that our project "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs.  A specialized encyclopedia on Resident Evil 4 would include a section on its weapons.  In addition to appearing in the game (which has versions on GCN, Wii, PS2, PC Windows, and MP), the weapons also appear with action figures (see, , etc.).  Finally, considering that many of the participants are involved parties or participants in the arbitration case, I agree with DGG that the injunction may have some bearing here as well.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The second that someone uses policies to back why something is unencyclopedic, "I don't like it" becomes irrelevant. Nobody should like it in the first place anyways. Uh, note that the section that you quote also talks about encyclopedic standards that must be met, and it even links to WP:NOT, which is a main factor in this AfD. The main article should cover the topic within the gameplay section. That is the topic's appropriate weight (third paragraph). Anything else is completely unnecessary. The injunction does not apply here until they specifically state that all articles regarding fiction are off limits. TTN (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're certainly entitled to your opinion that "Nobody should like it in the first place anyways", but I think you'll find that no article on Wikipedia is "necessary" and doesn't have to be. --Pixelface (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So, what you are in effect arguing for is a merge and redirect without deletion. As it stands, the article does meets our policies regarding encyclopedic standards.  This article meets what our project is.  After my last reply here, I have found an additional published source, a secondary source that focuses on the weapons of this game, and another secondary source that addresses some of the out of universe aspect of the weapons.  Also, the article was only created two days ago!  We should give the article a chance.  There is no hurry to destroy a non-hoax article two days after it is created.  Over the weekend, I added published citations to a number of history articles that have been around for much longer that had not cited material for months until I went through some of my scholarly books to add sources.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it should be deleted. I don't know where you got that from. It does not meet anything unless you try to wikilawyer it there. We have specific policies and guidelines explaining that not everything is suitable for this site. The sooner that you accept that, the easier this will be for you. I'm not going to bother analyzing the sources because all you do is find "superficial" ones just to skim the meaning of reliable secondary sources that provide an adequate coverage of the topic (i.e. wikilawyering). You need to provide creation and reception sections that cannot be added to the main article without adding too much weight for this topic. That is the only thing you can do, so either do it or don't try to defend this. I will not be replying to you again, so you don't have to bother replying to this. TTN (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article should be kept and you should refrain from these assumption of bad faith accusations of wikilawyering. The article passes our policies and guidelines thanks to the many improvements that I have made over the course of today and the fact that it was only created two days ago suggests that we should give it some chance to be improved, because it is not a hoax, copyvio, or personal attack.  Plus, saying that I need to add this and that, especially when I have already done so much to help this article out, is a bit odd.  Instead of authoritatively telling me what I do and do not have to do, why not help me to do these things?  The time spent going back and forth here could have been spent improving the article further and it is unfortunate if this has distracted from such an effort.  Finally, per your own standards indicated above, it should be noted that the article now does have a reception section.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion continued here, here, and now on the Resident Evil 4 talk page. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Per the above discussion, I have continued to improve the article. Please consider its changes from its creation two days ago on February 15 versus the current version.  Thank you.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's improved enough that I don't support deletion, and I'm willing to see how far this can go. Maybe merge later on, maybe not, but good job. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Ned Scott, thank you for the kind word and williness to change your opinion. I greatly respect such open-mindness and view it as a sign of class and character.  :)  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep following Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' improvements.--Alf melmac 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's really still a game guide. Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles really did do a good job expanding it but it has not improved much beyond its previous state. However, it still fails WP:NOT and, in reality, articles like this should really start on the main article and be expanded should they outgrow the confines of the main article. Redfarmer (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. The sections on the chainsaw controller and Reception would fit well in the parent article. The content listing the weapons and their in-game characteristics needs to go (or, at least, to be contextualized a lot); if that disappears, there's hardly enough content left to warrant an article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that is just not accurate as it passes that policy with flying colors as it contains a reception section and sources not found in game guides. I do appreciate the kind comment, but it has expanded considerably from its original state and again as it is less than a week old, deleting it so soon is a bit extreme and unnecessary.  Articles should be given more than a few days to improve.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has vastly improved and congrads to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. If more editors took the time to fix articles instead of piling on Delete votes, Wikipedia would be a better place.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixing an article does not necessarily make it pass WP:NOT, the concern of the nomination. And ad hominem attacks against editors don't help articles either (WP:CIVIL). Redfarmer (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It hands down passes the policy now as it contains elements (Reception, Reliable secondary sources) that are absolutely not game guide related). Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is now just gussied up gamecruft that still fails our notability standards by a country mile. I fear that Pumpkin is wasting his time with such efforts: we still have pretensions to encyclopedic content. Eusebeus (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have pretentions to encyclopedic and specialized encyclopedic content and the article now passes these pretensions by several miles. Again, please see here and here. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom and WP:NOT. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see here. Also, the article passes Guide.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is pure gamecruft. Move to a gaming wiki or GameFAQs. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that is just not accurate. It has material on the inspiration for the controller, review commentary, etc. and concerns an incredibly notable game that appeared on several major video game systems.  Moreover, it is unique in that a chainsaw controller was actually made for the game based on an in-game weapon, Capcom made a trailer for the game that focused on the weapons, Game Pro had an article that focused on the weapons, and action figures were even made of this game, which of course includes some of these weapons.  Please also see Cruftcruft.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okey, most of the article is non-notable. The small parts that is can be merged into the main article. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, though, the article is only a few days old. I was able to make substantially improvements in one day.  Wanting to delete it so soon is premature.  I agree with you here, but in the case of the RE4 article, sources were found, including reputable published magazines and again, that was done in just a few good hours of concentrated reference searching.  I'm currently at my apartment where I do not have all of my back issues of magazines that I have at my house.  If I, or others had a chance to go through some back issues of Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly, etc., more articles could potentially be found and we should at least have a couple weeks or so of an opportunity to do so.  As There is no deadline, editors should be given more than a couple of days to work on an article without having the article deleted and then having to start all over.  Also, I still think that the majority of the article is indeed notable and that it works as a nice sub-article to the main article.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What that other AfD has to do with this I don't understand. And regarding sources, I've never complained about the sources, you can have as many reliable sources you like, it's still game guide material. Sure, the weapons of RE4 got some attention, it doesn't mean it should have its own article any more then the crowbar of Half-Life 2. The relevant parts can be merged into the main article. -- Mr Stalker  ( talk ) 21:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That other AfD is mentioned to show that sometimes a stub does not have sources and therefore even I am willing to concede that it should not be kept, which is totally different from this case. The fact that a special controller was made, toys were made, an article in Game Pro focuses entirely on the weapons, etc. is proof that the article is not game guide material no matter how many times anyone wants to repeat that falsehood and proof that the article should have its own article, moreover, because not every game ever made had a special weapon shaped controller or action figures made with the weapons.  This game does have these things, which makes these particular weapons notable.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, following the improvement made by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles &mdash; and if we must, merge into Resident Evil 4. We have articles on the BFG9000 from Doom, the gravity gun from Half-Life 2, and others in Category:Video game weapons. I think that "Wikipedia is not a game guide" is being misinterpreted by some people here. When I think of "game guide", I think of a walkthrough or strategy guide. This list is neither. This is not an instruction manual or guidebook on how to play the game. --Pixelface (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, has independent refs, and possibly too large to merge into RE4 main page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: To address some of the lingering "concerns" above, I have re-organized the article further, added additional out of universe references, and a new section on the toys made of many of the weapons mentioned in the article. I again, therefore request that you consider the improvements from three days ago to the latest version.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made, though can I suggest reworking the subsections under "In-game weapons" into some kind of table? The content per subsection is far too sparse to use section headings. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Erik, thank you for the support and I would be willing to make a table or sorts if that would help, but I do not know how to make tables on Wikipedia. If you or anyone else have any suggestions about how to do so, or if others think that is the route we should go, please let me know, as I would be happy to learn.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really just do not see what other people see in this. Other than the reception and the toys sections, which can be worked into the main article, the rest of the article is completely still WP:GUIDE. I really am confused and there seems to be a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS going on. Redfarmer (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What people see is that it is an article less than four days old that has not been given much of a chance to improve. I in the matter of a couple of days managed to make all sorts of improvements to the article; imagine what more we can do if given a little more time!  Nothing in the article at this point fails Guide as reliable primary and secondary sources have been added throughout the article.  Ultimately, when I approach AfDs, I ask, "Will Wikipedia be better or worse off with the article under discussion?"  If we keep and continue to improve the article, we have a chance to work cooperatively to catalog an aspect of human knowledge and Wikipedia has one more use as a comprehensive reference tool and one more article to interest readers and potential editors.  If we delete the article, as it is not a hoax or personal attack but backed up by sources and coherently organized, then we become that much less useful as a comprehensive reference guide, maybe insult the article creator, send an "we're elitist" message to fans of Resident Evil, etc.  These types of articles concerning popular culture may be mocked by late night comedians or critical blogsters, but I care far more about what actual readers look for in our project and what our contributors are willing to work on.  Thus, I see no benefit to removing the article.  My main argument here remains, however, that I was able to drastically improve an article less than four days old in maybe two days worth of editing.  If that much can be done with the sources available to me now, we should at least give the article some time to improve further and for other editors beyond just the article creator and myself to take a stab at doing so.  Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the arguments you just gave are red herrings. Whether you have expanded the article or not is not in question. Sources are not in question (though they are mostly from game magazine guides, which reinforces my point this violates WP:NOT). Whether Wikipedia will be better or worse off is not in question. Whether the article will be mocked is not in question. The article was never accused of being a hoax or a personal attack. What we are considering is whether the article is within Wikipedia's policy requirements for articles. You have yet to cite any actual policy. Above, to other editors, you argued from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. My main concern has never been addressed, and that is WP:NOT. Redfarmer (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When an article cites BradyGames, that does not make Wikipedia a game guide, just like citing CNN does not make Wikipedia a news report. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not policy. What policy does this article violate? Does this article tell readers how to beat Resident Evil 4? --Pixelface (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All concerns have been satisfactorily addressed with the numerous improvements. In addition to those that I made, I see another editor has significantly re-worded some of the material in the list section as well. Thus, one of the many policies that the article passes is Guide in that it is not a guide. It also passes Five pillars by having notability to a real-world audience, plenty of references, and being consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. And it also passes Lists. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep asserting that but you have not explained why, especially when such a large portion of the article is sourced directly from a printed game guide. And an article really only need fail one policy to be deleted in some cases. Redfarmer (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has a whole bunch of different sources and several sections. Fortunately, it does not fail any policies and thus has no logical reason for being deleted at this point.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has five sections, one of which is empty, three of which are one paragraph long and can be merged into (and, in fact, would be more proper on) the main article, and the last, and largest, of which is completely a game guide. You still are not addressing the game guide concern and, in fact, are dancing all around it. Redfarmer (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was created ONE DAY before you nominated it for deletion. You can at least give editors more than a day to improve the article and to flesh in the creation section. Published secondary sources, a section on reception, a section on a special controller that includes links to reviews of the controller and a comment on the inspiration for the controller, a section on toys based on the weapons, etc. are all not game guide material. There is no real concern that it is a game guide anymore. This is merely trying to win an argument as the drastic improvements done to the article in good faith to address each any every criticism of the article has more than met any expectations for an article that is merely three days old to be given at least some more time to improve further. Instead of going back and forth with me, why not help us find some additional sources to flesh in the creation section? Articles do not need to be perfect in their first week of creation.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're dancing around the issue again. Ad hominem arguments do not answer policy concerns. Obviously there is a concern if I and other editors are expressing the concern. Stating it does not exist is not going to make it go away. If you would explain in a satisfactory way why this does not fall under WP:NOT, I would be satisfied. P.S. You'll note this was originally a PROD and I was forced to bring it to AfD early due to an editor's erroneous interpretation of the injunction. Do your homework before you accuse me of not assuming good faith next time. Redfarmer (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem arguments is posting a link to Guide in every single post you make to this discussion. Every single policy concern you raised has been addressed and fulfilled in the numerous improvements to the article.  The article provides the kinds of references and out of universe material that game guides generally do not contain.  A non-hoax, non-copy vio, non-personal attack should not be prodded ONE MINUTE after its creation!  See
 * 21:22, 15 February 2008 Redfarmer (Talk | contribs) (3,433 bytes) (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW))
 * 21:21, 15 February 2008 Jrorrim (Talk | contribs) (3,164 bytes) (Created page with list of most weapons in Resident Evil 4)
 * Prodding it one minute after Jrorrim created it is hardly fair to him or to anyone else who might have been able as I and the Rogue Penguin have been to improve the article. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, ad hominem attacks are when someone bypasses an argument in favor of attacking a person. And it is perfectly reasonable to place a PROD on potentially non-notable pages. Anyone can dispute a PROD and a PROD takes one week before an admin even considers deleting it. It's simply a concern on behalf of an editor that the article may not meet requirements. I've seen PRODED articles rescued many times. Does not mean that there was anything wrong with the PROD. And no, obviously every concern I have has not been addressed if I'm still asking for clarification. I can see I'm fighting a losing battle, though, at this point. Redfarmer (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One minute though after the article's creation? Should not an editor be given at least a little time to work on the page after its initial creation before prodding it?  By the way, looking over the Guide page you have linked to, if this helps to clarify, the article passes Guide, because thanks to Rogue Penguin's rewarding of the original material, the article "has descriptions...of things," while not reading "like a how-to manual of instructions" or "advice."  The article is NOT a tutorial or walkthrough.  The article is obviously not a Travel guide, Internet guide, or Textbook, so there is nothing in that link that article "violates" or "fails."  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm too tired tonight to look over the policy again. I'll give it another look in the morning. For the record, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to PROD an article one minute after creation. As I said, a PROD can be contested by anyone, including the page's creator, so it does not pose a significant threat to articles which turn out to be legitimate. Redfarmer (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, good night then. If I seemed at all quick to dismiss the citation of Guide, it is because as I explained above, I could see nothing on the page that made sense as a legitimate criticism.  Granted, these policy pages are edited constantly, so you may have been under the assumption of a previous version of that policy, but when I just checked it over again, I don't see anything in its wording that would apply negatively to this article.  Again, have a nice night!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the fence Don't see the need but can't argue with the relevant bits. The chainsaw bit can go in whatever article would take it (series, maybe?), as can some of the other bits. In other words, it's mergeable but might not need it. The question is, do similar articles exist for the other games in the series? If they don't, and this is kept, it should be expanded to cover the series as a whole. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to an article on Weapons of Resident Evil. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the "sources" are video game guides (Resident Evil 4: Bradygames Signature Series Guide, in particular). Merge the bit about the chainsaw controller into Resident Evil 4, and nuke the rest, as a game guide. --Phirazo 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not accurately describing the article or the policy. The article uses several different sources, only two of which are published game guides.  It has NINE other unique sources that are not strategy guides.  The article does not fail Guide in any manner whatsoever as has been explained above.  The policy is against walkthroughs, how-to, and advice.  The article is NOT a walkthrough, is not a how-to piece, not a travel guide, not a recipe book, not a textbook, not a tutorial, etc.  There is NOTHING in Guide that this article in its revised states does not successfully pass.  Rather the article states facts backed by reliable sources.  Moreover, the article is a work in progress that is still less than a week old.  Consider this section of another article I have contributed to.  We have outlines of sections that we know sources exist for, but are in the process of using these sources to flesh in the section.  So, just as the Enlightenment and Colonial Period of the Textile article not yet being fleshed in should pose no problem as it is clearly part of a work in progress, so to should the writers of this article be given more than a few days to expanded and develop the section on Creation.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is, in its basic form, "these are the weapons in Resident Evil 4." That is, almost by definition, game guide material.  The "In game weapons" section proves this, since is only a  guide on when to use specific weapons in the game.  For example, "Leon's first weapon in the game is a low-damage 9mm handgun. Although unsuitable for destroying doors or shelves, it can be upgraded to increase its chance of a critical headshot by 500%."  How is that not a game guide?  Half the cites go to a game guide, and most of the rest go to game reviews.  That shows Resident Evil 4 is notable, but not the weapons.  I'd expect a game review to talk about weapons, that is their job.  The only claim to notability here is the controller, but it doesn't hold up the article.  It is already part of the Resident Evil 4 article, so there is no need for a merge.  I see absolutely nothing here to justify an independent article.  Yeah, the article is longer and prettier, but it is still an article that is fundamentally game guide material.  No amount of improvement can change that.  --Phirazo 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, that is a totally inaccurate impression of the overall article and a focus on one section of the article that has itself been reduced and revised. The article in its true and honest form is "these are the weapons in Resident Evil 4, their reception, their adaption as a controller and in toys, etc."  THAT is be definition NOT a game guide.  The in game weapons section presents a concise and well-formatted table of aspects of a notable game that are discussed using reliable published and online secondary sources in the other sections of the article.  I see absolutely no good or valid reason to delete this article at this point.  The incredible effort and improvement to this article justifies an independent article that is no longer fundamentally game guide material and arguing otherwise is simply inaccurate.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Game reviewers talk about weapons in games, but that doesn't make them notable. This subject isn't notable outside of game reviews.  Looking over WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, that page says that "Lists of gameplay items or concepts" are unsuitable for encylopedic articles.  That is what this article is. --Phirazo 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the weapons serve as the focus of article titles (as in the case of the Game Pro article), as a unique controller, as a trailer for the game that is all about the weapons, etc., then they are notable. Thus, the subject is notable outside of game reviews and notable to a real world audience around the world.  Looking over our guidelines, the article provides information beyond just a list (there is no longer even a list in the article; there's a table).  This article is a presentation of factual and notable information backed up by numerous secondary sources divided logically into sections that cover the reception of the weapons, their innovations from earlier games, and their influence and adaptation in the form of a special controller and toys.  This information is consistent with what would be found in a specialized encyclopedia and thus per the Five pillars is suitable for Wikipedia.  Finally, the internal link you cite is, according to its headline, "not set in stone."  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Game reviewers talk about gameplay elements, which is their job. As part of the coverage of gameplay elements, they talk about weapons.  I see nothing to show real world notability, besides the controller, which is tangental at best.  The passage about the controller does not hold up the rest article, which is still has passages like  "There is a short delay before firing, making the rocket launcher impractical against faster enemies."  I can see an expanded section on the controller in the Resident Evil 4 article, but an article about weapons in a game is, by definition, game guide.  --Phirazo 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Appearance in a game that appears on multiple systems, in articles that have "weapons" in the title, with toys, with a controller, etc. all reflect real world notability. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Appearance in a game that appears on multiple systems," Notability is not inherited. "in articles that have "weapons" in the title," That is one article, in a game review magazine.  It essentially an extension of the review.  I don't see any sources outside gaming magazines that demonstrate notability.  "with toys," What action figures don't come with guns these days? "with a controller, etc." The controller can adequately covered in the main Resident Evil 4 article. "all reflect real world notability."  Sorry, but I disagree.  The in-game weapons section in particular is a pure, shameless game guide.  This is not notable. --Phirazo 03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually notability is inherited, especially in the case of subarticles. There were at least two or three articles with "weapons" in the title, not just one.  The toys don't merely come with one or two weapons, but multiple ones and showcase the weapons as well.  The controller has been covered in so many sources that it can be adquately covered in both articles.  You are wrong about it not having real world notability.  There is simply no other way to say that.  The in-game weapon section does not present the information in a how-to manner that a game guide would.  Saying otherwise reflects a lack of knowledge of what is and is not a game guide.  This is very notable.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (Indent reset) From the article: "The TMP is a fully automatic 9mm submachine gun. It has about the same firepower as the handgun but a much higher firing rate. It can be used to hold enemies at bay, but the ammunition is rare and takes up a larger amount of inventory space than most."  How is that not a game guide?  That is a how-to if I've ever seen one.  The article isn't better, it is just longer. --Phirazo 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a statement of fact backed by reliable sources and an incredibly minor aspect of an expanded article that chronologically presents the creation of the weopons, a brief description of the weapons themselves, their reception, and finally their implementation in the form of a special controller, a poster, a trailer for the game, as part of articles and strategy books, and toys. The article is both better and longer.  Suggesting otherwise at this point, when others are working to improve the article is neither accurate nor constructive.  Time could be better spent working to improve this and other articles with notability to people across the real world.  Finally, because I happen to have an actual game guide for the game on hand, the section on the TMP in an actual published game guide includes the price needed to buy the weapon in-game, when it is available for purchase, a detailed table of its firepower, another detailed table of its reload and still another of its capacity, i.e. not a simple prose explanation as in our article, which has none of those minute details that appear in an actual game guide.  Moreover, Bradygames's guide does NOT cover the creation, reception, controller, or toys and nor does it cite any non primary sources.  In fact, Bradygames does not include endnotes or footnotes like we do.  Our article, by contrast contains these out of universe sections and does cite secondary sources.  Therefore, comparing our article with a game guide is not reasonable; contrasting it with one is.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "It is a statement of fact" Actually, it is the advice of a game guide. "backed by reliable sources" That source is a game guide. "and an incredibly minor aspect of an expanded article" It isn't a minor aspect, since "In-game weapons" takes up most of the article (3/4, not counting the overlong quote), and especially when you consider that every weapon reads like this.  The article is stitching together a review and a strategy guide, and Wikipedia is neither. --Phirazo 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Phirazo, if an article cites a strategy guide, that doesn't mean the article is a game guide, just like citing CNN doesn't make an article a news report. In order to give reception information, you have to cite reviews &mdash; that doesn't make the article a review. Does this article tell people how to beat Resident Evil 4? --Pixelface (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are more misrepresentations that do nothing to actually improve the article or Wikipedia in general. As Pixelface said "When an article cites BraydGames, that does not make Wikipedia a game guide, just like citing CNN does not make Wikipedia a news report."  The article contains NINE elements (an introduction and sections on Creation, In-game weapons, the Chainsaw controller, Reception, Toys, References, See also, and External links).  The In-game weapons table that looks nothing like the published game guide pages and that also includes some references to reviews (see the listing on the Chainsaw, for example) is one of these 9 elements of the article, or 1/9 of the article.  As DGG has argued, "I'll leave it to those who work on the articles, I'm sure they'll clean it up. --I don't edit in that area. There's something which may not be clear: I have no personal knowledge about video episodes, as I almost never watch them. I do have an interest in orderly process and in general letting people who think things important write articles on them if the consensus of the community as a whole agrees they are worthy of inclusion."  Well, here we have multiple editors willing to work on and continue to work on an article that is less than a week old and those willing to do so should be permitted to continue their good faith efforts.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: The revisions to the article have continued. Please conisder the evolution from the original version versus the latest revision.  After the above comments, I was able to find some more magazine references concerning the weapons, even a negative comment to balance out the Reception section.  By the way, the main article approaches this material as a sub-section, as it does with characters and creatures.  See here.  Sincerley, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've converted the in-game weapons section into a table format. It's simple, but it works.  I think it's a better presentation of in-universe information, since section headings were a little extreme.  If anyone else wants to revise the table to look nicer, feel free to do so. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job and thanks! I agree that it does look better now!  :)  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Update. In the latest batch of improvements to this article, Geoff B has essentially eliminated any wording that could have reasonably been misinterpreted as "game guide" and Erik has done an excellent job converting the list into a table.  I have also made a couple of more grammar fixes.  So, again, here is the original version, only four days old, and the new version.  As a general observation, I applaud Erik, Pixelface, and The Rogue Penguin for not merely voting in this discussion, but for making good faith efforts to improve the article under discussion.  I also commend Bláthnaid, Judgesurreal777, Ned Scott, and PC78 for having the integrity to acknowledge the dozens of improvements made to the article during the course of this discussion that have successfully made the article pass all of our policies and their willingness to reconsider their original stances.  It is both refreshing and encouraging to see editors work together to improve an article as doing so helps fulfill our project's goal of providing the "sum of human knowledge" and will not alienate any of our readers or contributors.  Bravo to all eight of you!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now Merge to Resident Evil 4  - It is much better now true, but there still does not seem like enough content, now that there is content, to merit its own whole article, so either keep building it up, or merge it into the reception section of Resident Evil 4. Great work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Because the article is still less than a week old and because I am currently on campus (at graduate school), I hope that I'll have some opportunity during Spring Break in two weeks to check through my back issues of magazines when I return home (I have subscriptions to Game Pro, Electronic Gaming Monthly, Game Informer, and PlayStation The Official Magazine).  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is much improved now, lets give it a chance to continue to improve and grow, it could be GA at some point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to read that! After this AfD closes, I will do my best to bring this article to GA status.  Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Smerge Selectively merge info about the reception to the main article on the game. Several editors have made a valiant effort to make this look less like a game guide, and have added refs (from gaming websites, game guides, and other sources which may fail WP:RS), but it still does not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. I have followed Judgesurreal777's suggestion to build this less than a week old article up even further by adding additional reliable references and more assertions of notability.  Again, please compare the orginal version with the updated version.  As you can see, the article in its current state demonstrates that the weapons of Resident Evil 4 have had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject over the span of the past few years.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (possibly merge later, but definately don't delete). Non-trivial Reception section, who would have guessed. Good job, Grand Roi. – sgeureka t•c 23:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Just to indicate the latest batch of improvements: please compare the original version versus current version. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per discussion Gavin Scott (talk) 00:18, 22 February 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.