Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geography in the Suikoden series

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. The deleters argued that the page had insufficient reliable sources and pointed out the lack of real world context. The keepers countered with the assertion that sources were available, and will be added given time, and also argued that as a compilation page it was a good way to organise material that, individually, would not justify an article. Overall, I see a balance of arguments and there was no consensus. However, the flaws highlighted by the deleters do need fixing and, if the article is not improved in a reasonable time, say 3 months, then no objection could be taken to a further listing. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography in the Suikoden series

Fails to meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of combination article that should be encouraged. The individual things treated there are not appropriate for full articles, and this is a reasonable place to put them. In practice this is an arrangement of material, not really viewed separately. I find it really ironic that given all the debating on fiction, there isnt yet complete acceptance of the middle way of handling things. DGG (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem I agree these are not appropriate for full articles. So how does putting multiple non-notable items together allow them to pass the WP:GNG? Randomran (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same way any notable article can be broken down into numerous non-notable components. Ford MF (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, but where are the reliable and independent sources to show that this article is notable? Randomran (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial coverage reliable verifiable secondary sources present to establish notability. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. We don't need a whole article on a list of game locations that the reader doesn't need to know to understand the game. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup with a preference to merge/redirect (to Suikoden) if immediatism prevails and this article is found wanting. No, this article isn't close to what it should eventually be, as it's entirely too list heavy at the moment without enough real world context. But just because real world context is annoying to get at requiring Japanese translation doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it'll just be slow going. This is a single article for the setting of an ~8 game or so series with various spinoffs that viable development information has already been found in some other articles; it can be given time. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the game is notable, then keep; if the game is not notable, then delete. (By the way, Second Life does not seem to have its own geography article, and Second Life is notable.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the game and series are notable. See Suikoden (video game) and Suikoden. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The game is notable, but its geography is not. Notability is measured against the general notability guideline which requires coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Against this standard, the article fails. (If other articles fail too, that's irrelevant right now. Articles will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.) Randomran (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I made a neutral comment, which does not state a position for delete or keep - informing an editor that the series and game are in fact notable. (Quick edit: It appears I put my comment under the wrong person, which may have prompted your response, I'm moving to the right location) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My comment wasn't directed at you per se, but at the main comment: that it doesn't entirely matter if the game itself is notable. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not follow the WP:Writing about fiction guidelines, or WP:Notability guidelines, and I don't see how the article could be altered to adhere to them. Interested contributors may wish to transwiki to a gaming-specific encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It could be altered to something closer to Ivalice or World of Final Fantasy VIII, which are both good articles. It will undoubtedly take time and research, but Wikipedia is not on a deadline.

Note to closer: If some measure of good faith is being looked for, I think a rename to "World of Suikoden" and possibly some additional merging / reworking could certainly be done to improve the article, and I'd be willing to give that a shot. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My faculties and schedule being what they are at the moment, I am forced to just add a warm body for this side and note my support for DGG. This is an arrangement of material, a valuable and often vital feature that tends to go unnoticed in favor of acronyms with WP: in front of them when matters are being wrangled. A further thank-you to SnowFire. Great big articulate argument coming when cited limitations permit. --Kiz o r 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I would have to think that these books can be used to better reference the article and serve as reliable sources. Plus, clear reader/editor interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem: those are primary and first-party sources such as gameguides and novels. These can be helpful references to fill in factual gaps. But they can't show that this "geography" is notable. This topic has no third-party, secondary sources. That's why this article is up for AFD. Randomran (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a problem. The amount of them demonstrates notable and they are reliable sources. Citing a game guide no more makes us a game guide than citing a journal makes us a journal. There are also third-party, secondary sources as indicated which is why this article should not be up for AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't seen these third party / independent resources that you're talking about. Without them, this article doesn't meet the GNG. Randomran (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Please look harder because they've been presented on wiki and the article clearly passes the GNG. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Like I said, those references you pointed out are not independent, and thus can't help this article meet the GNG. Randomran (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm talking about the independent ones as well that do help the article meet the GNG. They are there and if I could find them, I am sure you can too. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But you can't find them and neither can I. That's why we've concluded it doesn't meet the GNG. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - But I can find them and so can you. That's why we've concluded it does meet the GNG. Reviews of the game even focus on the geography from one game in the series to the other. Hence why the article includes both in and out of universe information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I saw that one. One line about geography isn't significant coverage. Like I said, the references just don't exist. Randomran (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        When it's the title of the review and can be used with information in other reviews as well as the published strategy guides we have substantial information from which to build an article. This article is not original research in the vein of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, which as you can see I did think should be deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That review from 1up is only two short paragraphs with a snippy comment about "Gilligan's Island". This isn't enough to make the whole topic notable. I appreciate your efforts, though. Randomran (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LGRC. This should be doable as a topic. Mango juice^talk 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability asserted through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. This is entirely OR, or based on non-reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no demonstration of RS. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kizor. This has merit. User:Krator (t c) 10:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This is the right thing to have here. No objection to a rename to "world of...." Hobit (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per DGG, seems like an eminently reasonable way to proceed with these type of fictional elements. RMHED (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone's favorite wikimachine, DGG (why do I see this guy all over the place? does he leave the house ever?). Ford MF (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article totally consists of in-universe material without any real-world information on its development or reception. It is simply a list of locations, indiscriminate in regards to even in-game notability. Wikipedia is neither a travel guide nor an indiscriminate repository of information. Jappalang (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can those people !voting keep provide some suggestions as to where to find sourcing for this information? Corvus cornix_talk 23:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Published video game magazines could work as reliable secondary sources and published video game strategy books (citing these makes us no more a guide than citing the New York Times makes us a newspaper) can work as reliable primary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these published video game magazines don't give any significant coverage to the geography of the Suikoden series. Randomran (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They give significant enough for coverage on Wikipedia and from which we can reference an article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen them? If you can add those sources, then I'll gladly withdraw the AFD. Randomran (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use the link above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remaining neutral, however I did want to comment that The amazon link posted by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles points to gameguides, art books and some books that have the title "Suikoden" but are otherwise unrelated. I interpreted Corvus cornix's request for sources as one for explicitly cited sources. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing these sources no more makes us what they are than citing a scholarly journal makes us a journal rather than an encyclopedia. One way of going about finding more in the way of secondary source referenced I think could be to try variations of the article title with the name of a reputable game magazine, i.e. [1] and then use what we find in these secondary references and combine it with published books on Amazon.com to balance the in and out of universe coverage. I'll start revising the article myself accordingly. So, please take note of changes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Randomran is asking for sources (by which I presume he means third-party sources - plenty of first-party resources for parts from the games themselves); there are a variety of magazine interviews in Japanese gaming magazines that I've seen used for information on some other Suikoden websites as far as development information, and English-language game/manga reviews for reception. Now, I will agree that Geography might well be too narrow a scope, which is why - if this article is seen as basically salvageable - I would be in favor of moving it to "World of Suikoden" and merging information in. That said, even at worst, this can ultimately be a Summary Style fork of information that is common to an entire franchise and best placed in one spot, though I think that enough sources do exist that that won't have to be fallen back upon in the long run. Wikipedia is not on a deadline, etc., so even if it takes awhile for this to appear, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. SnowFire (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a policy, however, and if there is no verifiable evidence for the claims made in the article, it has to be removed. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is definitely not on a deadline. But if the sources don't exist, then it's just not notable. If you really honestly believe the third party sources exist (e.g.: not game guides, instruction manuals, or novels), I'm willing to postpone this AFD (rather than simply ending up in no consensus). But if we postpone and there's no references added, it's safe to assume that this isn't notable IMO. That's not a deadline. That's just drawing a pretty safe conclusion based on the evidence. Honestly, are you sure there are actual references out there? Randomran (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2008 (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.