Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Stone characters

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 merge to Power Stone. Consensus seems clear here that a careful selective merge should occur here, and any unsourceable, non-notable, and/or overly detailed information about these characters should not be merged to the main article. -Scottywong | converse _ 21:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Stone characters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing here to WP:verify notability of any of these characters. Aggregating them into a list doesn't solve anything, as there is no significant coverage to verify notability of this group of characters, according to WP:LISTN. I also note, without judgment, that this is a cartoon fighting game. The reason I bring that up is my best attempt to explain why the entire article is written as a WP:GAMEGUIDE, which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Some character lists make sense because you can write about their production and reception and offer some analysis of their role in the story narrative. But this is an example of a character list that's can never be anything more more than a bunch of stats/weapons/maneuvers translated into prose, this violating WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LISTN is not applicable to all lists, as it itself explains, but is merely one analytical tool. It helps us far less with subtopics such as this, which is merely a WP:SPLIT from Power Stone. If it is not to be kept separately for WP:SIZE concerns, then it should be merged back to that article, as a summary of the characters in a video game series is a necessary part of covering that series. So keep or merge (in other words, deal with through normal editing and discussion to trim or improve sourcing). postdlf (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, however Power Stone and Power Stone 2 both have plenty of room for an abbreviated character list. Remove the cruft and the characters will fit easily in the core articles. It's unnecessary spinout filled with cruft. --Teancum (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator; there needs to be some demonstration that the characters are notable for a list. The detail and format of the list is unencyclopedic. —Ost (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Ost (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Very Selective Merge- Fails WP:LISTN. It seems to be one giant example of WP:GAMECRUFT/WP:GAMEGUIDE material. I don't think it's worth merging either, it would take such a tremendous amount of trimming down that one may as well just start from scratch if they wanted to add character info to the game articles. Too much is unusable as is. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do support Teancums wording regarding a very selective merging of content, though, as I was saying earlier, I believe probably 95% of the content isn't appropriate to merge... Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and keep or merge. Much of this fails WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, but there's no apparent fatal flaw in this character list that would require us to delete it, so it could be merged if appropriate secondary sourcing sufficient to demonstrate notability is not found. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with a VERY selective merge - Full of WP:TRIVIA, completely unsourced. Would not oppose a generic character table in each game's article a la Transformers: War for Cybertron#Characters (shameless plug) --Teancum (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Selective Merge - The article as it stands is lengthy only because of the excessive game guide material and trivia present. With that removed, neither Power Stone article is long enough that a split is needed. With all the crufty material removed, then something brief, such as the character table proposed by Teancum, could easily be implemented. Rorshacma (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of list belongs in a video game Player's Guide (the sort of book that fans of a game purchase to learn everything there is to know about the game), not an encyclopedia. DOSGuy (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep The material is appropriate; the arrangement is secondary. Whether it should be separate or merged is basically a decision on the importance of the game, the nature of the game, and the amount of material (recalling the primary sources are appropriate for factual material about a work of art). I'm prepared to leave that to those who know about the game. The amount of detail is what separates it from a guide--much of the material to be covered will be in both, but at different levels of detail. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you call it appropriate? There's 46,000+ bytes worth of information without a single source. There are whole paragraphs dedicated to "someone's personal character analysis". There's "character bios" that I suspect are WP:COPYVIO's ripped straight from the game or manual. Meanwhile, the actual Power Stone article lacks any sort of character section, or content regarding it at all. It's not just about clean up, It's 95% innappropriate, and the parent article has almost 0 of the information. I don't understand any Wikipedia-guideline based justification for it being like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:57, 27 September 2012 (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.