Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Undertale and Deltarune 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 Speedy keep Thank you all for your input, especially the scholarly sources provided by Kung Fu Man. I realize that I misjudged the extent of sourcing, and will try to improve for next time. Nomination withdrawn. The Night Watch (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

List of Undertale and Deltarune characters[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Largely unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT (under criteria 6), and likely does not meet WP:NLIST due to a lack of extensive critical attention towards the characters as a group. There are brief mentions in reviews praising how the characters were written, but nothing substantial enough for a full list when a significant amount of them have no sourcing. I did some searching around online and found that many of the characters lack any significant material on their creation and reception. Even if it is found that the characters are notable as a whole, the article is still largely unsourced and needs to be rewritten. The Night Watch (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. The Night Watch (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really sure where the whole "needs rewriting" thing comes from - MOS:PLOT states that "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations". I feel there is a misunderstanding of what exactly requires sourcing and what doesn't. The page could stand to be expanded with more context, but it's not so barren of sources to fall under GAMECRUFT. Obviously, people are welcome to add more context, I just wanted to start a page for what (has been raised in numerous deletion discussions) is a very clearly notable cast of characters that has been discussed as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't this list get started like within the month? Honestly, kind of surprised this got put into AfD so soon. Conyo14 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bigger issue is that it's 99% regurgitated plot points and 1% out-of-universe commentary. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're quoting MOS:PLOT when this is a list of characters that should include information on their conception, design, and reception and not just a plot summary. Although there are elements of the plot that could be included on the page and do not require inline citations, the article and its characters are excessively based upon said plot sourcing and there is still not an adequate amount of material that I could find on the game's characters as a whole. Just mentions in reviews all basically saying that the characters were "all well written and very unique" is not enough material to satisfy NLIST, because there is no other significant material to work with. If several scholarly sources discussing the characters of Undertale and Deltarune does come up, that would be enough to satisfy NLIST. But at the moment, I'm just not seeing it. The Night Watch (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources that would hopefully address the issue, though I am all but certain there's more out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but give the page time to improve. I agree with User:Zxcvbnm — it's "a very clearly notable cast of characters that has been discussed as a group"; it's just that this list page is quite new (it's literally only about a month old) and needs a little bit of time to expand its bibliography and descriptions (instead of being insta-deleted). Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll be honest, I'm slightly iffy about the Deltarune half of the article. But Undertale's end has several papers with multiple citations discussing them on Google Scholar here. And that's coming from looking at the papers themselves. I will openly state these sources should have been worked in *before* the article was pushed out like this, but at the same time there's at least clear discussion too and the Sans (Undertale) AfD clearly demonstrated there is interest in a list of characters for this game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At least for the time being. The sources, while far from ideal, are at the very least adequate to meet the GNG, and the article is new. As such I would wait at least a short while to allow its improvement, before saying it needs to be deleted. If it is ultimately deemed to be unsatisfactory for mainspace and does not see any significant improvement before this AfD ends, it should be draftified, rather than deleted, and permitted to be recreated at a later date. silviaASH (inquire within) 03:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This article was made fairly recently and many sources have been found on the subject. It should have time to improve before it's put up for deletion. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Characters of X are routinely permitted when X is a notable media franchise with, well, characters. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator keep I can't say I understand the rationale behind the nomination, as it suggests that plot summary needs to be sourced when, by Wikipedia policy, it does not. And if it wasn't clear before, it is quite obvious now that sources do discuss the characters both individually and as a group, making the rationale that it does not pass WP:LISTN soundly refuted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 31 August 2023 (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.