Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resident Evil glossary

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. - Mailer Diablo 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Evil glossary[edit]

Unencyclopedic grab-bag of fictional people, places, and things in the Resident Evil game series, with no real-world context and no hope for real-world context, no sources and no hope for sources, and no encyclopedic content whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions.
Delete per nom and WP:FICT. Pan Dan 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you obviously don't play or know anything about video games at all if you think RE is not notable. --Pinkkeith 02:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man -- nobody has said anything that remotely suggests they think RE is not notable. The problem is that most of the aspects of RE discussed in this "glossary" are non-notable, and the notable ones already have articles of their own. — Haeleth Talk 11:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link that Pan Dan posted is saying that it ought to be deleted due to guidelines of notable fiction. Click the link and find out for yourself. --Pinkkeith 18:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just the title of this article is calling to be deleted --T-rex 23:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very popular video game that also inspired a few movies. Because it is fictional doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is an encylopedic index. --Pinkkeith 02:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on the games and the movies are not being discussed, but instead this grab-bag article on a bunch of mostly minor objects and locations in those games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the items listed there are not minor at all and are central to the plot. Just because you don't like the format of the article doesn't mean it ought to be deleted, and just because it is fictional doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is an encyclopedial index. --Pinkkeith 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Foo Island is important to the story of Resident Evil: Foo Incident, it should be handled in the RE:FI article, not this grab-bag of random factoids. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is an encyclopedial index. This format has always existed in encylopedias. You don't delete articles based on liking or disliking the format of the article. --Pinkkeith 02:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An index of what? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An index of objects, locations and organiztions found in Resident Evil. The only thing it needs is cleaning up and perhaps a name change. Yet, I wouldn't delete it on name alone like T-rex thinks. --Pinkkeith 02:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Resident Evil does that ably for the ones with articles, and we don't really need List of random places, organizations, and objects in the Resident Evil series for the rest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, that's the definition of an index. Also, you asked me what this is an index of, not what to rename it. There are many other fictional articles that are very similar to this, not only video games, but books, movies and television series as well. --Pinkkeith 02:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many others? I'd appreciate it if you could list them so they could be similarly dealt with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made it very clear that this is a vandetta for you with that statement. Yet, I will answer your inquiry with just one big example: Star Trek. Their index is so large that they broke it down: Characters, Races, All Ships, Lost Ships, Starships classes. Good luck with your quest. --Pinkkeith 03:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are dissimilar. They have specific subjects, not "random stuff related to a franchise". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are similar, they only thing that is different is that Star Trek's list is broken apart into different aricles. Would you be happier if RE was broken down in a similar manner? --Pinkkeith 18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminate the inane trivia, merge out what is only relevant to one work, make it a usefully comprehensive list with a narrow enough purview to not be "Every person, place, thing, or idea vaguely related to foo" and yes, I wouldn't have any objection to that. Since that would be a totally different list under a totally different title that could not use this useless collection of trivia as a start, this needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sss0 03:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No exact rules on Glossaries

(The Bread 05:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

- We have no exact rules on anything, except for verifiability, reliability, and neutrality. And if we had exact rules, there would be no need to discuss deleting articles. Would you like to offer a reason why this article should be kept? — Haeleth Talk 11:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I keep saying that to certain user(s), but that's irrelevant, my vote is per Pinkkeith anyway

(The Bread 23:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Keep, merging various bits and pieces into a list like this helps prevent people making separate articles for each of them. Kappa 06:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if something is (a) not important enough to deserve its own article, and (b) not important enough to something important to deserve a mention in the article on that subject, then it's simply too trivial to belong in an encyclopedia.
Some of the entries in this list are frankly ludicrous: "United States Federal Police Department - In Resident Evil 2, this government agency responds to a communicade by Chris Redfield detailing Police Chief Brian Irons criminal past" -- this is trivia of the most trivial kind. Then there are entries like "Umbrella, Inc", which is a genuinely notable fictional organisation... except it's a genuinely notable fictional organisation which already has an extensive article of its own, so why does it have a whole paragraph here too?
If we removed all the useless and trivial entries, we'd actually end up with something relatively sane resembling a List of Resident Evil places, which would be a reasonable thing to include that actually does have a lot of precedent on Wikipedia. I would have no objection to having that done instead of deleting the article. As it stands, however, this is not something that fits in here and not something we should keep in its current state. — Haeleth Talk 11:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fancruft... take it to a Wikia site. Bwithh 17:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many other sites similar to this, read the comments above. There is no guidelines to handle such lists. --Pinkkeith 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obviously fancruft. Combination 21:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fancruft is not grounds for deletion. A violation of guidelines such as WP:V or WP:N is. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Is cruft in general encyclopedic? Thought not. Combination 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here. WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia Sure you won't find it in a paper encylopedia, but it doesn't mean it isn't encyclopedic. Although, I don't really see this as beeing fancruft. --Pinkkeith 15:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. WP is not a glossary for fictional universes. Wickethewok 13:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like I said with the Metal Gear glossary deltion page "Encyclopedias always have sections that are broken down from the main topic (Like India and India's economy). I don't view it as a game guide, but as an expansion of an article." guitarhero777777 23:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Glossaries are permitted. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary. This is a mishmash of items already covered better in other RE articles (or even their own articles) together with things that aren't even very notable to fans. What next, List of Bomberman mini-bosses??? Again, voters, I implore you... always, always read WP:NOT rather than voting merely based on your opinion. Garrett^Talk 08:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to look up what is a dictionary. This is clearly not a dictionary. --Pinkkeith 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I should write an essay called WP:COATTAILS; secondary information related to notable items does not necessarily warrent a separate article. An article needs to stand on its own, and not ride on the coattails of a notable one. Per above: Wikipedia isn't a dictionay --Kunzite 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no particular guideline that this article violates. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 17:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, game guide, instruction manual, etc. +Fin- 16:28, 12 September 2006 (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.