Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Soul Calibur 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 delete. Nandesuka 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soul Calibur characters[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; listcruft/gamecruft and unencyclopedic. This article is unsourced and full of original research . The list is also rendundant, as there is already a category for Soul Cailbur characters hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 17:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Better as a category.--Nick Y. 19:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 22:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these to the articles about the games, for crying out loud, then redirect to, say, Soul Edge, which has stuff about the series. I remember I was looking for list of SC2 characters, but that wasn't in the place I first expected it to be (i.e., article about the game), and damn if I figured to look from "List of Soul Calibur characters". So please, put the lists to the articles. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. There's nothing here that couldn't easily be handled by a category. Ace of Sevens 23:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the page's Soul Calibur 3 section into the Soul Calibur 3 article. It does make the article more complete. Do what the wwwwolf guy is saying. DGhstLstRdP 10:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --SevereTireDamage 08:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per redundancy. It is not original research however. I'm starting to think that nobody remembers what original research means. -- Solberg 01:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Merge into respective articles, if character lists aren't even already there. But uh, where does "original research" come from? -- gakon5 22:23, 19 July 2006 (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.