Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoodlums (Rayman)

Add links
Source: 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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodlums (Rayman)

Hoodlums (Rayman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Normally I'm hesistant to call anything ' indiscriminate' because that seems to be the argument de jour, but in this case I think it's definately deserved. In addition, much of the information reads like a a game guide, also prohibited. Also, no sources are given, and according to the cleanup request recently posted, some of them are not in the game, raising potential hoax issues as well as the obvious attribution and verifiability issues whenever an article doesn't cite a single source, which lead me to think this might be original research or at least novel synthesis. Wintermut3 04:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions.
  • Comment. It's impossible to describe a video game character without talking about where in the game it appears. That doesn't make it a game guide. (It would if the article would describe how to defeat them, which can be removed.) Case in point: we have (or at least had) a featured article about Goombas. Now Goomba's are clearly better known and more notable, but if we can have a featured article on a character in Mario, it should be possible for other game characters without it being called a 'game guide'. The other issues are more serious, though. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MacGyverMagic as far as the "game guide" issue is concerned. I personally don't think it does read much like a game guide anyway - it includes a lot of information that would be found if the characters described were from a film or book, whilst a game guide would usually be nothing more than a rough description of each character's appearance, a collection of stats and a strategy to defeat it.
As far as the original research and verifiability issues are concerned, most of this information comes from the game in question (Rayman 3). I am the person who added the tags and the cleanup request, and the information that isn't from the game (and therefore unverified) is in the specific sections on "Armaguiddon", "Grims", "Hoodloon", "Hoodstriker", "Hoodstomper (Masterkaag)" and "Mecha-Destroyer". The names "Hoodblaster", "Lavicraft" and "Hoodlock", and the assertion that Grimkeepers "keep a jug of plum juice handy to drink away the shellshock after losing precious Grims in combat" are also unverified and not found in game. The rest is genuine, so rather than delete the whole article, why not just remove the unverified sections and keep the rest? They're also the bits that are written in (at least, what I percieve to be) an innappropriate tone (they're rather informal). I added the tag in the hope that the authors of those sections (StantheGarbageMan and an unregistered user with the IP address 86.52.188.23) would cite their sources, but they haven't done so as yet. RobbieG 15:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much content and EXTREME cruft. Quatreryukami 15:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "extreme cruft" would be a page going into great detail about a single character from the list. The Hoodlums are central to the plot of at least one Rayman game, and appear in others. Each type is listed with a short description. I don't think that's cruft, and I think the use of the term is an insult to the editors who contributed to the page, myself included. "Extreme cruft" would be if we went into a detailed analysis of Toots' remarks, or listed every time a Slapdash makes an appearance. The article is nothing like so extreme.
I'd also like to point out that "the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion," and that the term describes "content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic", which is a very vague concept. RobbieG 15:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'cruft' isn't a term I like to use, if you'll note it is not used in the nomination. On the other hand, the amount of apparently unsourced (and of dubious origin) material in the article leads me to question it's accuracy throughout. Can sources be found? If the requirement for multiple, non-trivial mentions of these things in independant sources is satisfied I'll gladly withdraw the nomination, but my own search seemed to indicate only game guides and walkthroughs (I'm not aware of specific policy but something tells me gamefaqs.com is not a reliable source given that it's all self-published anonymous material). Between the questions about veracity and the issue of sourcing, I had trouble seeing how this could be salvaged in its current form. Would perhaps a merge/redirect to the video game article work? Or maybe a reduction in length?Wintermut3 18:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: This is what the page would look like with all the unsourced content removed. All the stuff that is left on the page is found in the game (Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc) itself. Would it therefore be keepable? RobbieG 19:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that even if it only references the game itself I'm still seeing a shortfall from WP:RS and WP:V in that there aren't multiple sources, and it's still all tied to one primary source, I'll keep looking for sources myself, we might salvage this one yet, but to be honest, though the revision does help, I think that makes an excellent merger list. Wintermut3 23:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if your suggestion is to merge, rather than delete, we can discuss it on the article talk page, not on an AFD? RobbieG 12:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to a merge if that's the way consensus turns out, but in all honesty I have trouble seeing the encyclopedic merit of an article that's a list of enemies from a specific game, especially if no attributions can be found outside the game itself. Wintermut3 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion. Would it help if the article was renamed "Hoodlum (Rayman)"? That would be more in keeping with the site's naming conventions, and it would show that the article is a description of the Hoodlum, rather than a list of types (the article being altered accordingly). After all, we already have Bumpty, Ing, Albatoss, Nergal and even Eggplant Wizard. RobbieG 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that is simply not true - the Hoodlums are recurring enemies that appeared in both Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc and the sequel/spin-off title, Rayman: Hoodlums' Revenge. So they actually appeared in two (and arguably three, as the GBA version of Hoodlum Havoc featured a completely different plot and gameplay style from the 3D version) games. They also appear on various gifts and things that are available from the Raymanzone website. RobbieG 18:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 5 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hoodlums_(Rayman)&oldid=1137915540"