Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talos (Resident Evil)

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. Not by !votecounting, but by strength of arguments. The article provides no "non-fictional perspective", no "out-of-universe referencing", no reliable independent sources at all (an online in-universe game guide, a printed version of the same game guide, and a blog text). Fram (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talos (Resident Evil)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is a character associated with one of the most successful survivor horror series in history and so thousands of readers will be interested in this verfiable material and will be willing to edit it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a great time to verify it by adding out of universe referencing to assert its notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the google search link below. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add the sources to make it meet WP:FICT otherwise you're just spouting nonsense. RMHED (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this for example and notice such headlines as "TALOS and its importance in Resident Evil canon". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article has no primary sources to verify its content, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world notability. Lastly it has no encyclopedic content, as it primarily plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been rewritten to provide non-fictional perspective, and the source Judgesurreal777 recommended has been added. The character is highly relevant to the backstory of a major franchise, and Wikipedia would be poorer for deleting the entry outright rather than allowing it to be improved upon further. Zyid (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have posted to the wrong AFD, i did not request any reference be added that I have seen. Also, I haven't seen the article improve yet either. Judgesurreal777 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the reference wasn't your suggestion. Nonetheless it was added, and the entire article was in fact extensively rewritten to provide non-fictional perspective. Your refusal to acknowledge that fact seems to suggest an agenda other than improving Wikipedia. Zyid 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable character from a notable game series. Knowitall 10:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Where are the references? Judgesurreal777 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the page. Zyid 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FICTION, because those are not the kind of references the article needs, at least not the ONLY ones it needs. Judgesurreal777 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the consensus here on acceptable sources for this sort of article is changing for the better, by which I mean the more flexible. what is being challenged? that the character is not notable in the game? DGG (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is being challenged? The fact that this article does not meet WP Guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT, WP:NOT and WP:WAF.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2007 (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.