Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paper Mario series characters (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 no consensus. Secret account 01:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paper Mario series characters (2nd nomination)[edit]

List of Paper Mario series characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After several months of surviving from no consensus one way or the other, none of the problems have been addressed. The only out-of-universe information in the article is a single sentence describing the visual design of the characters. At some point we have to acknowledge that the problems won't be fixed after not having been fixed for several years; if someone wants to do major fixes in the span of the AfD, be my guest, but I don't think there should be anymore extra chances to fix the problems that are brought up every time an AfD is made. Besides lacking notability, it's got four cleanup tags, and is in general a mess - the article is completely unbalanced, giving undue weight to minor characters. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selectively merge to Paper Mario (series). I may switch or reaffirm my opinion later on in what I predict will be a lengthy debate. The first AfD, as the closing admin stated, was laden with weak arguments. I do note that no discussion has taken place on the article's talk page since the first AfD which states that there is both a lack of interest in the article, and a lack of a cleanup effort. This is an only observation and doesn't go against the article at all. I'll quote what I wrote at the first AfD, as the rationale still applies here, hopefully without the influx of bad arguments.
  • Looking over this list, I don't see a need for a good 90% of the material on here, as it is just way too detailed, or "crufty" as some say, for a general encyclopedia article. Also I'm not sure that most of this can be cited from reliable sources without having to use original research. The content and scope of this list are out of whack: read over entries like "Jolene" and you'll see what I mean when I say this article has major OR and plot issues. I imagine a possible solution would be to merge this to the main article and there we can create an encyclopedic understanding of the characters. This solution applies just as well to the article now as it did to it back in July. ThemFromSpace 08:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. However, do not simply redirect, as I highlighted last time the cause for this article being restored previously was due to it being redirected, yet the information was not merged to the target, thus making it a misleading redirect. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMerge and redirect If the verifiable information within this article is as limited as the nom suggested, merging should've been easy. Nominating for deletion if you don't want to do the neccesary work yourself is bad form. - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - standout characters already have their own articles; remaining fictional aspects belong in the plot synopsis of the games. The provided citations are ideal for the critical reception and development sections of the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Maramusine says, the standout characters already have their own articles, and this is not being challenged. So what do we do about the other ones, the ones that are a little less than notable? Some people want to fight for individual articles on them, but I do not think that is necessary, except for major characters--I have no longer been defending such articles. Some think they can be removed entirely, or reduced to bare names on a list, but that's not encyclopedic. The compromise is to have them in combination articles. It's much easier to make decisions when there is a way to compromise, and keeping this article is the compromise solution. As the Fiction guideline rules discussions faded, essentially everyone there on all sides had accepted some sort of compromise of this sort, though there was considerable disagreement about its nature and limits, in every possible direction, which has prevented formal consensus on any one solution, as is often the case with guidelines. Rejecting such compromise is going to leave only one solution for the people who do want content about these characters, which is to go back to the old practice of individual articles. I want to avoid that. I also want to avoid the feeling that people on one side of an issue refuse to compromise. The inclusionist side is apparently willing, and has done so, in accepting these combination articles--I do not speak for them, but I can observe that they have de facto accepted them. As for the content, I think most of it is OK. The sections for some of the characters are probably slightly excessive, but this does not have the really outrageous overexpansion we sometimes see: a paragraph about each is perfectly reasonable. For a complex series, an approach through the characters is often a good way to go. I certainly find understanding a list like this much easier than to read the equivalent material arranged as a single plot (this isn't inherent, but it is much easier to write short sections on a character than to cope with a complicated plot, and many of our editors would be wise to start in on something relatively small, because they certainly make a mess of anything longer.) DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such compromises are unnecessary. What does this provide besides an excessive plot summary? Why does Kolorado need two paragraphs to cover his minor supporting role in a single game? There needs to be an established need for this list, not just "oh hey we want to show more plot". An acceptable compromise would be to expand discussion of the partner characters in their respective articles and that's it. Don't you think there's something wrong when Kolorado's plot summary is of comparable length to the plot summary of the game he appears in? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriate list and discuss reasonable default ways to handle these articles. It seems obvious that minor characters are clearer when presented here than in a plot summary... and yes, its sad that there was no discussion on the talk page since the last AFD. So why not start one with the various editors who have contributed to this list in the past? Developing working compromises on articles such as this is a realsitic way to improve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor characters are inherently unimportant unless otherwise stated. Why do we need a summary of Kolorado that's comparable to his only appearance's plot summary? And while it would be nice to have time to build bridges with other editors, I don't have such time. I dispute that there's a clear basis that THIS is a list that must exist, without ever telling readers why this three game series needs its own list of characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with this character list. Three very notable games, with millions of copies sold(for the second two anyway, the first game not having its sales figures listed in its article), are as deserving as a character list as series of bestselling novels, anime/cartoons, and manga/comics. Isn't there a policy about character list somewhere? Are now that they've gotten rid of 99% of the articles for individual characters, are they now going to destroy all the character list articles as well? Dream Focus 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if it's specifically mentioned in policy or guideline, but secondhand notability is not notability. If the popularity of the game means it warrants a list of characters, then every aspect of the game is notable enough and requiring a list of enemies, or a list of locations. And another no-no is "these similar article exists, so this list has to exist". And Wikipedia tries to cover every aspect of a game it can without going into excess. Some characters will get lost in merging/deleting characters and character lists, but them's the breaks. The major characters of the three Paper Marios are all mentioned in their respective articles - they could perhaps use a little more mention, like the partners' effects on gameplay, but beyond that, there are many characters in all three Paper Mario not mentioned in the list, so that argument would necessitate indiscriminate inclusion of all characters from the series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia has a policy against listing minor characters without citations. All major characters are already at Paper Mario (series) and the series doesn't need an in-depth character list. Listing all minor characters and enemies like this is practically WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Finally, the people who keep arguing to keep the article are completely unwilling to clean it up, probably because doing so is practically impossible without any external references besides game guides and the game itself. Unless there is cultural significance, articles about characters belong in FAQs, specialized Wikis and the like.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia's policies in favor of listing major characters like these who verifiable through reliable sources, i.e. as as subjects are clearly notable as demonstrated by the improvements made to the article since nomination, that they come from a recognizable franchise, and the fact that the items on this list can be verified by reliable sources as linked within this discussion to Google News and Books. I did a Google book search and did find some information on development and reception that I added to the article. There appears to be oodles more on Google News. So, perhaps expanding the development and reception information would be a good start to build off of my additions. The series needs an in-depth character list as such articles belong on Wikipedia per our First pillar of being a specialized encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how they need a separate article. Mario and the rest all have separate articles already where the information can be noted. That leaves the minor characters from the Paper Mario games, and the information you just cited could easily go in the development section of Paper Mario or in the main Mario role-playing games article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would prefer to merge as a compromise per WP:PRESERVE, that is acceptable as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to preserve them, it does not necessitate preservation. Preservation is good if the content is established as important, but it's a question of how much content need be preserved. Any character that has its own article obviously needs not be mentioned in the article besides having a {{mainarticle}} link, while I'll repeat that any compromise would not involve criteria for inclusion. A compromise would be for this article to exist, trimmed down to only necessary/notable content and well-referenced. The compromise ended up being at the opposite end of what those who want it deleted asked for, and it just ended up as a low quality list with no established reason to exist besides "we need to preserve it!" If the content is deemed unnecessary, then preservation is unnecessary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the information IS preserved outside of the encyclopedia, because this is game guide information. Thus, WP:PRESERVE doesn't have any bearing here.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per DGG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite frankly, the problem is that the strongest argument is "we need to cover them". Not every subject needs to be covered. I really want the closing admin to consider the weight of the arguments - it's a combination of lack of work on the article [that always comes back for the duration of the article], the only out-of-universe content being really more about the overall game product or how the game renders its characters than about the actual characters themselves. If the characters were recurring throughout the series, or if they had unique notability, maybe. But the out-of-universe coverage simply does not exist, and there is no criteria for inclusion and, as such, being a character in the series makes you important enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as Marasmusine mentions, any characters of note already have articles. There's lots of cruft here, listing lots of minor characters. --Teancum (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides the fact that you cite an essay, he doesn't say "It's cruft", he says that there's a lot of game cruft, that it lists many minor characters, and that the only characters of note have articles and as such, the only point of the article is to list non-noteworthy characters. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once again, that's essay, and not policy. It was also created by you and as such is merely opinion. I understand the point, really I do, but does Wikipedia truly benefit from having an entirely separate article about characters like Lakilester, Wise Wisterwood, etc? That's why I stated it's cruft -- however I'll use a different term from Wikiproject VG policy and call it WP:GAMETRIVIA. Any notable characters can be listed in List of Mario series characters to keep them all in one location. At any rate, me calling it cruft was merely a secondary point, as the main point is that notable characters already have articles, and any remaining list content could be merged to the main Mario character article. --Teancum (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I thought at least lists of fictional characters was acceptable to the community. Per DGG also. Ikip (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that were true, shouldn't it be true that every character from every work of every medium should be included on Wikipedia? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it notable media, then yes. No harm in it, and some would benefit from this complete encyclopedic coverage. Dream Focus 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a resounding argument to say "it can't hurt". If that's your best argument that no harm is done, then I'd suggest dropping this article. Some would be helped by including a boss list for Mario Galaxy - true or false? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You don't like this type of article, you don't believe any of them should exist, and you will keep nominating one after the other, and renominating them if you don't get your way, determined they are destroyed. The article was kept last time, and will probably end in keep or no consensus this time, and you'll probably just nominate it again, or someone else with the same views will, and we'll be back here to do it all once again. The article is well written, well organized, plenty of valid information, and I see no legitimate reason for anyone to try to delete it. Dream Focus 13:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So wait, a good article is listed for rescuing? Wow, shocking. If I didn't like this kind of article I wouldn't have made a characters list for a single game. I like the kind of articles that aren't surviving because "we must mention every single minor character in a game as if Wikipedia is all about listing every little trivial thing in the world!" The article was kept on no consensus, and it effectively said "too many people saying keep, but with weaker arguments." If it weren't for the sheer mass of people wanting it kept, the lack of quality arguments would have made it a clear "delete" verdict. Oh, and at what point is an article with an "additional refs" cleanup tag, "notability" cleanup tag, "in-universe" cleanup tag, and a general "cleanup" tag well-written, well-organized, or clearly containing "plenty of valid information"? It just boggles the mind to suggest that this article is better than bad. The valid reason is that "hey, can't hurt" is NOT a valid reason for an article to exist. It's that if that's all that can be said in the article's defence, an article which is clearly of low quality by the content and the cleanup tags, then why should it exist? Like I've said, "it helps some people" applies to so many things that don't belong here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mario role-playing games, no merge. There isn't any real-world context to justify giving this much text to this many minor characters, and given the current status of the Paper Mario articles, it doesn't seem there's a need to. This isn't a complex series, either: The repetitive nature of the characters is proof enough of that ("<character>, a <species>, helps Mario after he helps <it> to <minor plot point>"). Thus, the article is essentially a list of minor plot points, in bullet form. Nifboy (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge and redirect to Paper Mario (series) or Mario role-playing games. No notability for this particular group of characters. Nice to see the ARS block vote in force. Verbal chat 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block vote? How slanderous. Do you ever see more than a handful of the ARS members in any AFD at a time? You see far more people from various other Wikiprojects all showing up at the same areas and voting delete, more often than anything else. Those most active on AFD will see familiar names, often voting the same way everywhere they choose to participate. Dream Focus 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what I find hilarious is that despite the fact there's a big fat rescue tag up there not a single thing's been done to improve the article. It's AfD: many people here have genuine concerns and there's no "right" for an article to absolutely have to exist. As its stands many characters in this series are exclusive to it though some could be salvaged and put in the series article. Are you interested in an encyclopedic study of material or simply trying to keep it all at any cost? AfD isn't "to nuke or not to nuke", it's a call that some (and yes some, not all) people genuinely believe "this may be crap, improve it or it has to go".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not cleanup. If you have a problem with an article, discuss it on the talk page. Millions of people play these games, and the characters are an important part of it, so they listed in a side article, instead of overwhelming the main list. Dream Focus 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not overwhelming to list only the major characters in the main list. We've had a problem with this article for the longest time; we kind of figured that the, what, five AfDs would eventually get someone to work on it? It's up for deletion because no one wants to clean it up, and hasn't for years. You always talk about compromise, but it's not a compromise with what you propose. You basically propose "Oh, let's leave the article in its current state. Compromise?" No, see, that's you getting everything and us getting nothing out of said compromise. A compromise would either be "cleanup and it won't be deleted" [aka, the compromise given with every AfD before this] or "include the major characters in the main list". The latter is great because nobody wins! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never talk of compromising, finding that a ridiculous concept. Others have stated that a compromise was to let them mass delete a vast number of character articles, and just combining them to character list articles. Then once that was done they "trimmed" the character list articles, and have been trying to delete them entirely as well. Dream Focus 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you make an assumption of bad faith and use it as an argument to keep this article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? You don't like the article, so you want to destroy it. I do not see any legitimate reason to do so. Simple as that. Anything else is just a lame excuse for people to justify their actions. Dream Focus 19:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can I like it? How can I like little to no references, no criteria for inclusion, no notability asserted, etc.? Here's an idea - instead of defending it every five months and forgetting about it immediately after, give me any reason to like it by improving it in any way. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The many people who have contributed to it, and many who have read it, think its fine the way it is. We are not here to make you like it. The Wikipedia is to be used by millions, it unlikely that any article, no matter how it is written, will appeal to even a tenth of them. A few million people bought the games, which means billions of others did not, and probably don't care about them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't care when someone tries to pointlessly destroy something that others have worked hard on, and many do in fact care about. Dream Focus 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(fixing indent) Well, it's great that you think it's good without having any good qualities to it, more power to you. But no human being here has ever suggested that "oh hey billions of people never heard of it. Delete!" You keep generalizing people calling for its deletion as holding torches and pitchforks. We are not calling for its deletion because of its subject or source material. If it had the appropriate content or tone we've been asking for for the past five AfDs, it wouldn't be up on AfD. The ONLY thing that ANYONE cares about is the quality of the subject, not the subject itself. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD is about the subject, and whether it is notable enough to have an article. You do not delete something because you don't like the quality level. Dream Focus 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying it's a problem that an article can be deleted because no one has attempted to assert notability in years? And when four AfDs came and went without improvements to the article [aside from minuscule improvements made every AfD to give the impression of improvement]. Also, why do you care so much about an article you've never edited before? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I saw someone suffering, even if I didn't know the person, it would bother me. If you have a conscious, you do what is you feel is right, and you care about the suffering and injustice directed at others. You don't like their work, so you wish to destroy it. I see no valid reasons to do so. And if it survived that many previous AFD, why do you keep trying? Most people want it left alone, so leave it alone already. Why are you so determined to destroy it? Dream Focus 20:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason that I want gone any article that lacks notability and references. If you're suffering over a Wikipedia article, that's a problem. I've had my fair share of articles I've worked on that were merged, redirected, or outright deleted, but I got over it because they had their points. I'm not going to say I want the article to be here so I don't hurt peoples' feelings; clearly, Wikipedia is not for you. If you want low standards of quality for your content, go to the Mario Wikia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ZXCVBNM. Additionally, if any one feels that this might be a candidate for trans-wiki to the [www.mariowiki.com|Super Mario Wiki], please hit up my talk page. Thanks. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Article has improved dramatically since nomination and has addressed any reasonable concerns for deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dramatically? Two references and a reception paragraph does not classify as dramatically improved, nor has my stance been "refuted". Now you're just stifling other people's commentary. Now, if ALL the characters had at least one citation, THAT would be enough to make me change my stance. However, right now they don't have anything close to that. The characters are still unsourced and have no external references. Claiming that it was refuted is just hogwash and seems like a last ditch attempt to save your position. As I said before, those references you added could easily be used in the main article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Super Paper Mario: Characters and History Interview," GameTrailers.com (Apr 16, 2007) is undeniably an external reference. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • References and overall prose has been updated, but that's never been the issue. The issue is that there's an indiscriminate list of very minor characters here. Heck, I'd even change over to a keep vote if it weren't for the fact that it lists practically every character in the series, notable or not. --Teancum (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That video is a developer interview, hence, it does not prove notability since it's completely self contained. It might reference the information but it doesn't prove that it is notable. Characters such as Mario have a whole bunch of cultural impact and that makes them noteworthy for an encyclopedia. Are there any PAPER MARIO EXCLUSIVE characters in that list which have any cultural impact that you can reference? If I made a game and made a list of its characters on Wikipedia, would it be any different than this one??--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • That a reliable website sees fit to list it proves notability by any reasonable definition of the subjective and anti-encyclopedic term of "notable." Comparing a list of characters from a multi-series game franchise covered in published reliable sources with something you would hypothetically just make up one day is indeed quite different and beyond apples and oranges. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again, it does not count as a secondary source because it was from the developer. It does not matter if IGN hosted Nintendo's statements, it's still Nintendo's statement. It's not cultural impact - that Nintendo commented on their own content is not unexpected and does not quality for use in the article. What we want is an explanation for why these minor characters warrant inclusion, not why these major characters that have their own articles already are important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge: The citation by A Nobody is quality but would be better placed in the article on the specific game, if it isn't already. The majority of the characters listed here are either [exceptionally] minor characters or otherwise have articles of their own, such as Mario. Those inbetween the two types would be the ideal merge targets up to their parent game articles. If a merge is not possible which would preserve the integrity of the target articles per WP:PLOT, than a straight up delete would be fine. In the end, this articles serves as a regurgitation of unnecessary plot. --Izno (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep excellent improvements by editor A Nobody and others means the article easilly meets our noteability criterea. Even if any doubt remains, we should keep this very informative article per m:Vision. Vision and Mission statements trump other guidelines. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your latter statements are weaker than your former, which is weak in and of itself. As for why: The latter are weak due to the specifics of "The Vision". We're looking to produce knowledge. What we have here in this article is data; information. Knowledge is organized data and information curated in order to provide a broad but systematic view of the topic. This article does not aid in that whatsoever. As for the former, that's easily disputed and already has been. --Izno (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, encyclopaedias dont aim to produce knowledge – that would require original research. Our purpose is to relay existing knowledge, and with respect to this subject the article does a great job. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, so you ignored basically the entirety of what I said in lieu of answering that one sentence?... --Izno (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I dont agree my statements were weak, and think the per Vision point was the stronger of the two. But i dont see any harm in others haveing a different opinion so didnt see the need to challenge your assessment. I hope i didnt seem overly terse, its just some folk round here seem to prefer concise remarks! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one, I do not see what is excellent - by the fact that it fails to address one of the major complaints of the opposing side; his improvements only assert notability for the characters whose notability is established already. The information validates the content that needn't be validated, so what did his improvements do to make the Paper Mario-exclusive characters notable? And it's not OR to produce information. Production is not necessarily creating our own information, but recreating information on this Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Improvements have started. It's still got quite a bit of work to do, but it it should be salvageable. I'll try to trim down the sections on The Thousand Year Door since that's the only one I've played. Feel free to bring back parts that shouldn't have been removed. It's been awhile since I've played so I may be underestimating the importance of some characters. Reach Out to the Truth 19:42, 7 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Paper_Mario_series_characters_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1086074910"