Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Silent Hill monsters

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 delete. Consensus is that the coverage of the monsters is not significant enough for them to merit an article. Sandstein 06:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Silent Hill monsters[edit]

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

Not notable (not enough coverage by third-party reliable sources). Golden Sugarplum (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Golden Sugarplum (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Just from looking through the Silent Hill 2 reviews, I noticed that nearly every reviewer comments on the monsters; it's probably the same for all the other SH reviews. That alone covers third-party notability. There's also ample development info about the monsters (symbolism, creation, etc) from Team Silent floating around. The article itself just needs some work to reflect that. Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. But the article needs tons of general fixes, it contains tons of original research it's largely written like a game guide. It's like a wikia. Let's wait to see what others say about it. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it needs some work—some meaning a massive clean-up—but the sources are all there. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough coverage of reception and/or significance, violating WP:NOT#PLOT. Also, Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. A concise summary of the enemies is suitable, but a comprehensive list of monsters is not. (Keeping in mind that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, if only until they're nominated for AFD too.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is not SIGNIFICANT coverage in third party sources. For why there can appear to be many, many sources when there really are nothing belong catalog-type entries, see my essay wp:OOUOnly — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to think "Silent Hill monsters" could pass WP:GNG. But this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK right now and with the amount of sources could be easily covered in the respective articles. The minor mobs are not notable, only a few bosses are worth a mention (and Pyramid Head already has an article). There is little to no real-world impact. The article is practically useless to a general reader and is currently a list of trivia bordering OR. I'll echo Shooterwalker that OTHERCRAPEXISTS, in fact, ALOTOFOTHERCRAPEXISTS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to have a well-sourced article on "Silent Hill monsters" with the sources below, then this should be Silent Hill monsters, and not "List of...". We don't need a list or monsters, we need development, design, reception, impact, critical commentary. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but if there were to be such an article the appropriate name would be "Monsters of Silent Hill". The development-design of the SH2 monsters can be adequately covered by the making-of DVD included with the European release of SH2 and Lost Memories, an official guide book by Konami which contains info on SH1, SH2, and SH3. The development-design of the SH1 and SH3 monsters can be covered by Lost Memories, but I'm not sure this is enough coverage. Check this translation of it and judge (it's unofficial, but this isn't against the rules of Wikipedia, we've used this translation for SH articles). The development-design of the SH4, SH:O, SH:H and SH:SM monsters I have no idea if there are reliable sources for them. For the impact and critical commentary of all the SH monsters in general (except SH2's, for the reception of which multiple links have been provided below) I, too, don't know if there are reliable sources to cover them. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever name is suitable best. I'm not against moving this to Monsters of Silent Hill, as long as all the trivial mobs/bosses are dropped and proper real-world related info (development/reception) is included. But as it stands now, this article is not about monsters per se, but about listing every one of them. It's gameplay trivia. The few referenced facts can also be easily covered in the parent articles. Until someone writes up enough material for a stand-alone article, we don't need content forking. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A model to base it on could be Covenant (Halo); it contains design, reception, and tie-in merchandise, with the individual monsters briefly mentioned in the "Species" sub-section of the "Appearances" greater section and individual characteristics of each monster also briefly mentioned without the article being like a game guide or wikia. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kaguya-chan said that almost all reviewers comment on the monsters and that that alone is enough third-party coverage. I strongly recommend we first see reviews to see if they cover the subject in depth, before any decision is made. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes (for the SH2 ones anyhow): "Many, if not all, are disturbing on a subconscious as well as visual level, making this a game that's definitely not for kids (even though it's been toned down since earlier work-in-progress versions)." & "Take, for example, the monster design. Rather than having your run-of-the-mill zombies or ghouls dripping blood from their fangs, the first creature you'll encounter looks vaguely like a person sealed up in a head-to-toe plastic bag." & "The game's creepy monsters are one of Silent Hill 2's real strengths... There aren't many different creatures in Silent Hill 2, but the few that are there are unique and add to the general atmosphere." There's also "with bizarre, twisted, slimy and deformed creatures shambling around to provide the all-important horror element." & "The monsters are extremely original and do an excellent job continuing the creepiness" in addition to a piece by Gamasutra's news director: Alexander, Leigh (2007-07-19). "Column: The Aberrant Gamer - 'Sundering the Mind'". GameSetWatch. & a piece in the print-on-demand book: Rusch, Doris C. (2009-03-10). "Staring Into The Abyss – A Close Reading of Silent Hill 2". Well Played 1.0: Video Games, Value and Meaning. ETC-Press.—considered an RS by the Video Game project. There is also the making-of documentary included with the European release of SH2 that covers the creation of the SH2 monsters. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the SH 3 set: "And not just your hulking, Doom-style video game monsters, either, but really icky, nasty-looking ones that your eye can't quite categorize. Silent Hill 3 creature designer Ito Masahiro must have some really juicy nightmares." & The monster design follows very much in line with the other games in the series."&"Each enemy is rendered with an equally high level of detail, and they are animated in an unworldly, unsettlingly horrific manner."&"We're not sure quite why or how this formerly sleepy town manages to mutate its former occupants in such bizarre ways, or what they're doing hanging around in darkened corners, but there they are, groaning away in the darkness again, scaring us half to death." Not nearly as much as SH2. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more for the reception of the SH3 monsters: "The music score and sound effects have once again been crafted by Konami's talented Akira Yamaoka while the disturbing monster designs are the work of Konami's Masahiro Ito". For the reception of the SH1 monsters: "That's not to say that the monster design is under par though. In fact, there was one species in particular - a shaggy man-thing that barks and sets after you on all fours - that sent a chill up the back of my neck every time I saw one" and "But Resident Evil did some things better. The enemies in Silent Hill are all sort of pinkish and don't move very well. The settings and the mood are actually scarier than the creatures themselves." ... "uninspired monsters". For the reception of the SH4 monsters: "Speaking of the enemy, the series is well known for its down-right disturbing creatures and The Room is no exception" ... "Both the enemy and human characters are extremely well designed", "In the mean time, Konami does a pretty good job of scaring you with surreal circumstances, unexplainable deaths, and a series of undead creatures of obscure origins", "Also, several of the creature sounds are just wrong. In the hospital (yes, there is yet another hospital), you'll meet several giant Amazon women who have giant foreheads and carry axes. They burp when you smack them. No, really. Burp. They also make the funniest sound when you kill them off, like an old woman yelping after realizing she's stepped in dog poop. Lovely. These she-beasts transform from being incredibly intimidating to the silliest character in the game. Um, who gave that sound effect the green light?", and "The ambient and creature sound effects are often very important to horror games as well, and the sound in Silent Hill 4 is great, for the most part. Creatures all have their own distinct calls, footfalls, and death rattles". This includes a SH1 monster, a SH2 monster, and a Homecoming monster: "Gaming's freakiest monsters: A biological study" (page 2); this includes two Homecoming monsters: "Gaming's freakiest monsters: A biological study" (page 3). For the "Merchandise" section: "Silent Hill resin statues bring the creeps home for Christmas" and "Would you spend hundreds on a figurine?". Golden Sugarplum (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violating what Wikipedia is not. (Not a directory, not a plot summary, etc.) There might be some good data that gives complements to the art in this game in general, and it's better to add that to the main article than to use it as a reason to list every possible monster. Dzlife (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFaqs --Djohns21 (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's plenty of coverage of the monsters, which shows that reliable third-party sources exist. If you'll excuse me sounding like Mulder and Scully, the sources are out there. The monsters are a major topic of coverage whenever this is reviewed, so this is a legitimate topic for a standalone list.

In what I will call the Silent Hill Dispute, Wikipedians disagree over whether an article should be deleted if the article does not establish notability, or whether it should only be deleted if no sources to prove notability exist. I tend to fall into the latter camp. The article may be in bad shape now, but the topic is legitimate, and so I would not say that an article/list by this title should not exist. We do have such articles as List of My Little Pony characters, so if this is simply made into a character list with appropriate sourcing rather than a game guide, this can become a good list. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belonging to the second camp too, I agree that there are people who seem to approve deletion just because it's wrongly written, but I don't agree that the word "list" should be kept in the title if the article doesn't get deleted. The article's purpose isn't to just list the monsters, but inform people about them. "Monsters of Silent Hill" or "Monsters in the Silent Hill series" accurately reflects the article's purpose. The fact that "list" is included in the titles of many character articles doesn't mean it's correct; many mistakes are common in Wikipedia. About notability, I'm 100% sure about SH2's monsters (design is adequately covered by first-party sources, the making-of DVD and Lost Memories, and reception is adequately covered by different third-party sources) and 25% sure about SH1 and SH3 monsters (design covered by the first-party source Lost Memories, but I don't know if it's enough, and for reception I don't know if there's enough third-party coverage); for the monsters from other games I don't know too if their design and reception are adequately covered. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've transwikied this page to StrategyWiki:Silent Hill/Monsters (with full history). The page will likely be split up for each guide on each game, but the information will be available if users want more details. -- Prod (Talk) 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork + fancruft Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to ask people who intend to vote here to first take a look at the sources provided above. I'm searching for more. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CFORK. While there is reception enough it is in relation to the game, and not the monsters themselves. The quotes above should be used to further expand the respective game's receptions. I see plenty of coverage, but nothing significant -- just bit-and-pieces quotes. --Teancum (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources provided do not comment on the game, but on the monsters or the monsters' design, in some instances; carefully examine their exact wording and you will see it for yourself. The fact that they are bit-and-pieces quotes does not lower their quality; a quote is more than enough to indicate if the opinion of the source's writer is positive, negative or so-so. We should wait until sources for the reception of the monsters from the remaining games are provided, as well as wait to see if more sources for the design exist, before we make any conclusions. The "Merchandise" section is already covered. I can tell that the number of the reception sources will be very large, so a very large collage of quotes will be the material for the "Reception" section. I've only searched 4 or 5 sites to find these, imagine what I will find if I search all the reliable video game sources. The problem is finding sources for the design of the SH4, Origins, Homecoming, and Shattered Memories monsters and something more for the SH1 and SH3 monster design. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (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.