Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Price

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Price[edit]

Captain Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is very, very little here worth keeping. Checking the sources in reception, this is what I was able to conclude.

  • 18 and 19 are lists with literally nothing to say.
  • 20 says literally nothing.
  • 21 is a repeat of 18 and 19.
  • 22 basically says nothing besides "He's in Call of Duty!"
  • 23 is from an unlisted source, possibly unreliable, still says nothing anyways.
  • 24 does go over his character, and is legitimate reception towards him to some extents.
  • 25 does the same as 24, but this is from the same source anyways.
  • 26 wasn't archived and now is a completely different article that does not mention Price at all.
  • 27 is Valnet, not usable in notability discussions.
  • 28 just says "Captain Price, the series' most iconic character" without any sort of elaboration.
  • 29 I can't even tell what is trying to say, and it's just a list of Call of Duty characters anyways. Does this even count as reception?
  • 30 is more or less reception for All Ghillied Up.
  • 31 does the same as 24 and 25, but it is also from the same source.
  • 32 is not reception, it's trivia.

So this leaves us with references 24, 25, and 31. All from GamesRadar+. Everything else is lists that don't have much substance. I don't think this character has enough reception to stand on its own, just like Soap and Ghost, and WP:BEFORE does not do much for Price either. He likely fails notability and SIGCOV. NegativeMP1 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. NegativeMP1 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect or Merge per Piotrus. I'd like to keep this around, but it just doesn't seem to have enough to stand on its own right now. I support a List of Call of Duty Characters article should this AfD go through, but in any case, the article right now just doesn't have grounds to stand on its own. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge. I am also not impressed by the reception (and I appreciate nom/s ref by ref breakdown). "received critical acclaim" followed by "ranked as eight on Game Informer's list of "30 Characters Who Defined a Decade" and voted as 17th top video game character of all time in Guinness World Records 2011 Gamers' Edition." is quite contradictory, to say the least. I'd nonetheless support merging some content to Call of Duty which right now does not have a section on characters at all. A List of Call of Duty characters could also be created. @BoomboxTestarossa on the off chance they feel like creating another list following my bright idea :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think out of both of those options the most ideal one is a List of Call of Duty characters. A characters section, if including characters from all timelines and games, could be way too big for the Call of Duty franchise article. This idea was also proposed at the AfD discussions for Ghost (Call of Duty) and Soap MacTavish yet was not created. NegativeMP1 (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI there previously was such a list thought it was deleted several years back.--65.93.193.235 (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly list articles have a tendency to accumulate cruft, but that shouldn't be a reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.