Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Tenpenny

Add links
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 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.  Sandstein  09:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Tenpenny

[edit]
Frank Tenpenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This video game character is not the subject of in-depth (significant) coverage across multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Everything noteworthy about this character (which tends to be passing mentions/listicles about his in-fictional-universe context) can be adequately explained in the main video game's article. (A redirect there would be sufficient.) Tenpenny had no in-depth coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 15:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only "books" that Tenpenny is mentioned in, besides books about Grand Theft Auto itself (i.e. The Meaning and Culture of Grand Theft Auto) appear to be small (and unreliable) fan books. As for the four sources that you provided: three are listicles, and one only has a passing mention (literally one sentence, in brackets). I'm not saying that the character/performance wasn't critically acclaimed, but unless a number of reliable independent sources provide in-depth coverage on Tenpenny, the article should be redirected. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And whatever would even constitute this "in-depth coverage on Tenpenny"? And when you know what you look for, did you even try? Arguably the single best received non-protagonist in one of the all-time best selling and most popular pieces of pop culture worldwide, "not noteworthy". --AggressiveNavel (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think czar summed it up quite well here: "we should only be writing about characters that get actual coverage about them as individuals (notability). It has little to do with what you feel has sources/worth, but more with what the sources have had to say about it. Ellie (The Last of Us) is an excellent example of a character that has been discussed in depth by sources, and it shows.". As for Tenpenny being the "single best received non-protagonist": while I could certainly provide many examples against that, I shan't on the basis that you have not provided any sources that support your statement. It's not about what we personally find "noteworthy", it's how reliable sources discuss the character as an individual, and the amount and depth of these sources determine their notability. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 11:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And "how reliable sources discuss the character as an individual, and the amount and depth of these sources determine their notability" in this case here? Every PS2, PC and multiplatform magazine and website had San Andreas reviews and various features, and later there were all kinds of retrospective articles, how many of them did you check? Actually I don't know anything about Ellie, but is "presmably-less-than-Ellie" a threshold of being not "noteworthy" now? How about someone being discussed more-than-Ellie, will she be redirected then? AggressiveNavel (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide the retrospective articles about Tenpenny that I somehow did not find during my brief search, I would be happy to take a look. Also, Ellie doesn't really have much to do with this article; she's just an example of a character that has been discussed in depth by sources. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 12:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what publications did you include in your search, looking for what exactly, and with what results? I did mine, it was quick indeed and only online. So here's for example this: [1] "He remains the ultimate GTA bad guy" spoken in 2012, with GTA having been at that point already one of the most successful entertainment franchises in human history despite being "only video games", but this is is probably still not "noteworthy". How absurd is that? Or [2] in a similar vein. Or maybe something different: [3] and when we're at it, [4] (GamesRadar staff) and [5] (GamePro staff, amusingly referencing their illustration to Wikipedia! Ah, the Wikipedia before the deletionism took over and since then only became ever worse) in addition to the one by IGN that the article already has. And so on. I can go on with without even touching reviews and it's just stuff online, readily easy to find by anyone, yet allegedly nonexistying because Czar said so and said nope, nothing noteworthy here move along (and did I mention his original action was to just redirect a whole article without any discussion?). We really shouldn't be even discussing that. I see you were present at a discussion 2 years about merging the article to List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas characters. Well you know what the Czar did with THAT article (the list), without consulting anyone? Click and you'll find out! I myself only just noticed. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are appreciated (even if they are mostly short listicle entries), but please take your issues with Czar and/or Wikipedia elsewhere, they do not belong here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it to his talk page I'm sorry, was frustrated. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Neutral at the moment. One one hand, the sources present so far don't seem to constitute significant coverage, they're mostly passing mentions in listicles and generic "This gangster's a badass" "This guy is so bad"-type empty commentary. On the other hand, his respective game has sold tens of millions of copies I believe, so I also would we surprised if there wasn't enough coverage out there somewhere to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sergecross73, what again? With your "some Virtual Fighter game" about Namco and Ridge Racer, and your confusing an uniformed policeman with a gangster now, it's like reading a Polygon article. And these sources, also the few examples I just showed here, are rather about Tenpenny's sheer evilness, as he's commonly considered one of the best villains in gaming history, plus Jackson's excellent voice acting. But yes it was the best-selling game on the PS2, with stellar reviews and tons of awards too. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken/corrected. I was thinking of Carl Johnson (Grand Theft Auto). Point still stands though, the article is severely lacking in content and sources. About 75% is in-universe plot summary, and then you've got a tiny reception section that notes there was a 35th place best- villain placement, and a 87th place villain placement, and an award Samuel L Jackson got on it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
35th out of how many? There are uncounted thousands of major villains in games. Is it tens or hundreds of thousands now? Did I say commonly? Here are some more: [6] [7] --AggressiveNavel (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter "out of how many", it matters how many sources covered the subject in significant detail. I'm currently leaning towards the other 3 redirects so far - I don't understand how any of the listicle sources you keep presenting are ever going to elevate the reception section out of anything more than a repetitive cycle of "Website X ranked him 57th best bad guy. Author Y of website X said "I liked how he was bad." What else is there? Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd show you what I'd do it with it, with a real research which I didn't even yet, nobody did, but now I don't even want to waste my time for what will be a pointless exercise in futility. It's a poor article now, yes, but you're never going to be satisfied. Between your unrealistic exceptions and your disparaging attitude, complete with you originally commenting not even knowing what article is discussed but having your deletionist mindset fully set already, it just isn't worth it. And I know CJ's next, and all the other GTA protagonists, as you already commented how CJ is nothing but "only a badass gangster" with what you call "passing mentions" and so in your mind he's got to go. Which is a shame, but guess I have to learn not to care. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you and others even understand what "redirectig" here even means. Because the list of the characters has been redirected already, to a bief article section that says "The Guinness World Records 2009 Gamer's Edition lists it as the video game with the largest voice cast" and despite an unprecedented consumer and media attention it seems nothing there in its characters is otherwise "noteworthy" anyway, except of CJ for a time being. Like there's Development of Fez as it's super noteworthy while of course there's no development of San Andreas article and son no sub-articles of any kind because Wikipedia clearly has priorities. So what redirecting here (which has already happened) meant for an extemely successful and critically acclaimed character, considered by many one of the greatest not only in the pop culture phenomenon that is GTA but also in the very history of games, is he's been erased completely except his mentions in the plot and a note who voiced him which is all that remains. But let's keep it up and just erase all GTA characters everywhere, then all game characters, and their lists too of course. Because yes lots of other lists already have been redirected recently, it's not enough to listify anymore and everything needs to be purged completely. So this is what "redirecting" means in this context. And with this I'm going to leave you here, because I'm burned out. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The jabs and snippiness really isn't appreciated, and won't get your argument anywhere. Development of Fez exists because some editors realised that the development itself was notable, so they took the effort to create a separate article. Clearly, no-one has taken the effort to do the same with San Andreas; this is down to the lack of interest from individual editors, not "because Wikipedia clearly has priorities". If you have found sources that support Tenpenny being "an extremely successful and critically acclaimed character" (of the five provided above, four are listicles and one is a passing mention), by all means write something in draftspace. But complaining about the recent deletions and redirects on Wikipedia (which all seem to be warranted, and supported by guidelines, in my opinion) will not support your argument. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 11:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the GamesRadar and GameInformer sources brought up here, and the IGN source cited in the article, which goes rather in-depth with the character. These sources also discuss why he's important to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The fact that these are listicles should not even be relevant, just as long as they constitute as significant coverage, which I would argue for with those sources. I'm not convinced that that his article should be condensed into the San Andreas article (which is already a rather big article) instead of just keeping his own article. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That they are "listicles" means that they are only important to the author alongside 9 or 99 other characters. We don't keep WP articles for the aggregation of throwaway superlatives. I see no reason given why the little coverage called "rather in-depth" would not be adequately covered in a character list within the main article, which has no extant length concerns. czar 22:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is coverage. It does not matter if it comes from a listicle. If anything, being included in a lot of listicles shows that the character is more important than others, making them deserve their own article (at least as long as the listicles in question don't only constitute passing mentions, which they don't). Kokoro20 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, "coverage is coverage" is not true. Many of these listicles are closer to passing mentions, and they're not saying much of substance that would create actual content in the article. Still not sure how it would evolve out of its current status of 75% plot summary, 25% journalists saying "This bad guy is bad." Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some listicles do only consist of passing mentions, but others do not. My point was, people seem to be discounting listicles here, just because they're listicles, without taking the context of the listicles in question into consideration. That's what I meant when I said "coverage is coverage". Some of the listicles brought up here definitely consist of more than just passing mentions, if you ask me. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Tenpenny&oldid=1068981819"