Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series

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 no consensus. Merging into an existing or as-yet-uncreated article seems to be a viable option, but there's not a consensus for a specific merge target and the discussion on that can continue on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series[edit]

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

WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE 70.29.211.138 (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete andyzweb (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Tomb Raider characters or similar, per generally accepted naming. See Lists of Nintendo characters. I know, I shouldn't use the other stuff exists argument, but I see no reason to delete this article. Ivanvector (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I notified an editor who is currently improving articles in the "Tomb Raider" area. If they are willing to clean-up the article, then we should keep it. Perhaps WikiProject Videogames may also help, they were previously notified of this AfD. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is an older article (by a year, according to edit history) called Tomb Raider characters. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I contested the prod there and will initiate discussions on a potential merge/page move at the relevant WikiProject. (Unless this is deleted in which case there is nothing to merge.) --Taelus (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Relevant discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Tomb_Raider_Characters.2C_two_pages_to_be_merged_possibly., hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge with Tomb Raider characters into a new article List of Tomb Raider Characters. Also nominator did not specifically mention why it fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Simply listing them is not grounds for nomination. Why does it fail? No rationale given for the failings, no legs to stand on. --Teancum (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I recopy the text of PLOT or GUIDE, what's the point of having shortcuts? The sections are either plot-only descriptions, or guides to how to reach interaction points with the characters or what action to use for an outcome plus a plot description. Now... that looks like I copied the shortcuts I listed as reasons for deletion... which seems a rather pointless exercise in excessive verbage and duplication. 70.29.211.138 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you need to explain which criteria it fails in either of those. There are multiple reasons for failure. See WP:ATA -- an example from that page is as follows ---- Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts". Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article. --Teancum (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as plot-only fancruft and game guide information with no basis in the real world. I would also support the deletion of Tomb Raider characters. I'm not discounting the possibility of a complete rewrite at Characters of Tomb Raider but as they are now, neither character article is encyclopedic and thus would not be conducive to merging. The characters would be better off summarized at their respecive game articles.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, which is the default whenever the WP:ITSCRUFT non-argument enters a discussion. Anyway, keep as well due to no actual reason presented as to why this verifiable and notable content concerning characters from an astonishingly important game series that has spawned two mainstream movies and even an amusment park ride must urgently be protected from the public eye. The article passes WP:LISTS by being a discriminate listing that provide a navigational/table of contents function as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notablility has not been established here. There's only one third party reference, and that's to the IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source. Notability for the series does not mean immediate notability for secondary characters. If the secondary characters cannot stand on their own as notable, the article cannot stand. While I'd much prefer cleanup and sourcing per the WP:VG guidelines, I don't see how these characters could ever stand solely on their own with reliable, third party sources. A few might, but on the whole they couldn't. As far as passing WP:LISTS, the guideline has this to say: Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. The Tomb Raider character list as it stands is not encyclopedic, being merely a re-hash of the plot in relation to the characters. That coupled with notability issues makes this a tough one to support. One article for all major sub-characters that's sourced well with reliable, third party sources I can support, but I found no sources that could be used to help this article. --Teancum (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one way or another, bullying a merge is unhelpful. Find ways to serve our readers. Obviously a character list is acceptable, what remains is one or two and if split, how? Seems the current split is causing more problems than solving. I certainly could be wrong. I would expect major and minor characters so "recurring" jars a bit although there may be good reasons for it. As always with a list, expand the lede to spell out the nuances and significance so the rest of us can read that and move on. -- Banjeboi 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We really should just have this discussion once, instead of repeating it time and again. Keep for the same reasons all the other AFD about list of game characters was kept. They are notable fictional characters, who are found in multiple notable works, and often get plenty of coverage, as much as a real person would, in game review shows, magazine articles, and whatnot. And by Keep I mean to keep the entire article, not "prune" 90% of it, or try to replace it with a redirect(as has happened elsewhere time and again). Dream Focus 15:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long running fictional series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tomb Raider characters. Pare down drastically, and remove the copyviolating images. Abductive (reasoning) 11:31, 30 January 2010 (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.