Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Sims 3 premade characters
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 Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of The Sims 3 premade characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A list of characters for an so far unreleased game (the game itself is very notable, that's not the issue here). These characters are not like characters in a story and are not important for any understanding of the game (which has no story). This is purely in-universe information which fails WP:N rather badly. These characters have not received serious attention, as evidenced by the 17 Google hits for one of them, Charles Langerak[1]. Fram (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, along with List of The Sims 2 premade characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nomination says it all. Bigbluefish (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as the nom says The Sims (series) has no story of any significance, and these "characters" are just premade families for those players who don't feel like making their own - the developers may have created backstories for them, but as I recall you weren't under any obligation to follow them. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canon Sims Characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in the Sims 2, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pre-made characters in The Sims, which I gather from the noms were similar lists which were all deleted. BryanG (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of this, I suggest a speedy close. The suitability of these two articles has already been substantially discredited by previous discussions. Bigbluefish (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (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.