Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guild Wars characters

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 due to lack of demonstrated real-world notability and reliable secondary sources. MaxSem 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guild Wars characters

From the views of a non-reader, a list of unnotable characters from a game has little to no relevence to the real world, failing notability.

Also, out of the only four sources on the page, three of them came from the same source (ArenaNet). The last one as far as I know is even more irrelevant, being about the music of the game.

Basically, this is gamecruft, something Wikipedia is not. IAmSasori 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Eric Sandholm 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles, which explains why this article exists. WP:FICT allows articles on characters of a fictional work, and, moreover, recommends making a list for large numbers of characters. WP:CRUFT is not a content inclusion policy or guideline, and therefore unsuitable as a rationale for deletion. This is not an indiscriminate list as it contains only the main characters from a notable series of games. The notability of individual entries of this list may be settled in the article's talk page instead of AfD; several of them have been noted in the gaming press for which citations can be found. Eric Sandholm 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no exhaustive list of things that are and are not acceptable deletion criteria. It's funny how often the "it's just an essay/guideline, therefore we don't have to take any notice of it" comes up when it suits people. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  I think you may mean "when it suits the article" That's the very reason repeated attempts to make some of these essays into guidelines & guidelines into policy have been consistently rejected--they are not always appropriate to the situation. DGG (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to delete per WP:FICT. No Guild Wars character is independently notable. Eric Sandholm 07:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gamecruft plain and simple. No notability outside of the game. Solely in universe context. Pilotbob 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another example of constant cruft sprawl from a game. Also I"m not sure WP:Fict should cover games. A book is notable because it's a work of fiction, a game while having elements of fiction is notable for other reasons. Also sorry don't buy the claim thaty this lists only notable characters. This list has somewhere around 100 entries. Ridernyc 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Gamecruft at its finest. If there is a relevant game wiki for guild wars with a compatible license, then transwikification to there is an option. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~. While I like the page, it grew well beyond the "notable" fictional game characters quite a while back. I could alternately support a massive purge of the lesser characters, leaving only the ones who follow the player across multiple campaigns, plus the one principal antagonist from each campaign. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just drastically reduced the article. It needs de-in-universification, but I am not prepared to put any more effort into it if is going to be deleted anyway. Eric Sandholm 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT - Now that several dozen of the lesser characters have been purged, I can now change my opinion to a Keep ... although the individual descriptions still require additional cleanup. However, I agree that it's most prudent to wait for the outcome of the AfD before investing further effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as any fool can read the writing on the wall, I have delinked this article from all other Guild Wars articles. Eric Sandholm 15:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the current format, shortened by Eric, I think this page contains only the notable characters from the series which have have seen and mentioned in the game press. If the page is deleted the character bios now wouldn't take up much space in the individual campaign articles, so could be moved/merged there if desired. I still prefer to keep it however because several of the characters are notable across the different campaigns. --Aspectacle 21:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lists of game characters are usually good, notable and possibly have a lot of out of universe context. However, this MMORPG has no demonstrable plot or story, greatly decreasing the possible value of such a list. If it has a plot and story, write about it in Guild Wars first, and see if all the information can be confined to that space. User:Krator (t c) 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the story/plot sections of Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars Factions, Guild Wars Nightfall and Guild Wars Eye of the North. Unlike other MMORPG Guild Wars does have an overall plot which drives the content of each of the games, as such your comment is not valid. Prior to the edits performed by Eric each story section linked into the page currently up for deletion. --Aspectacle 01:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those three pages indeed describe a plot in great detail. However, I have to note the following:

The three plots seem distinct, with few or no recurring characters. Also, due to the nature of the game, I would compare these plots with quests in a regular RPG.
The main page, Guild Wars, describes no plot. I believe that the space provided by that page to describe plot and story is sufficient space to describe any important characters.

User:Krator (t c) 08:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guild Wars article refers to the game series, the individual campaign articles refer to the actual games, with each campaign having a storyline involving 1-2 dozen central "missions" and hundreds of "quests" each - the comparison to other RPG's quests is not valid. The article in AfD lists the central characters that do appear in all campaigns, as well as key characters of each campaigns, some of whom also play a role in multiple campaigns. While these could be merged into the overview article and/or the individual campaign articles, I feel the central article allows for better consistency and easier cross-referencing - although I do feel that the article in AfD needs considerable clean-up to eliminate the in-universe writing style that still remains. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The comparison to other RPG's quests is not valid." - As this was one of the central points in my argument, I ask you - why? I do not see how individual characters in quests in individual Guild Wars expansions are more notable or worthy of mention than, for example, Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark. User:Krator (t c) 21:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of these fictional characters.--Gavin Collins 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please do keep in mind that this article is already a merger of pre-existing character articles in a game that is notable for its unique approach to story and character in an MMORPG when voting. I think it's appropriate for highly character/story-driven media to have seperate pages going into more detail. provided they are linked from and tie into the main article appropriately. That said, this article will need improvement if it's kept. --54x 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles like this is what Wikipedia is good at. We should not be trying to delete stuff like this, but give it proper referencing (which, in this case, can be perfectly valid done from primary sources). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Eric has de-linked pages that linked to the article I can't tell how useful it was in respect of the articles it linked to, maybe he has a rough idea from memory? Certainly, per 54x's argument, if this list is the product of individual articles being merged and then redirected to the list, deleting seems counter-intuitive. I also use common sense in that the weight of the referencing will be from primary sources, the talk page seems active in spotting duff inclusions, considering the nature of the subject, I'm content with that, issuing only a caution about the careful wording needed when using primary sources. I also note no real discussion on the talk page as to the article's perceived failings, which should be encouraged and rationalised.--Alf ^melmac 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the history if you want, but most links will be dead because the list used to contain a number of trivial characters. Eric Sandholm 07:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far no one has addressed the fact that this articles fails WP:Plot there is no real world context anywhere in this article, it basically amounts to giant plot summary. Also WP:Fict is a guideline not policy. There is currently a debate going on about WP:Fict and the section that would apply to this has been removed because it contradicts policy. Ridernyc 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When this article was created, WP:FICT was considerably more permissive than it is today. Back then there used to be a prominent recommendation to make lists for main characters in a notable fiction. The current WP:FICT seems to claim that only characters with notability commensurate with that of Superman or Hamlet are worthy of Wikipedia. There is no contest, then: no Guild Wars characters has anywhere close to that level of importance. Eric Sandholm 07:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article also makes no attempt to pass WP:Plot. A well written properly sourced articlke that passes WP:Plot will almost always pass all other tests. Ridernyc 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that deletion because it doesn't conform to style is a weak argument - if article is allowed to exist it should be allowed to continue if it might be able to be bought up to the standards governed by the wiki. All pages in the wiki at some point start out not conforming to some standard or other. There are other lists of video game characters which are allowed to continue on this wiki which, to me, have about as much notability as the guild wars one but just have more referencing(Characters of Final Fantasy VIII or Characters in the Halo series).
My concession to this is that I'm not sure that any of the editors around at the moment which regularly edit the Guild Wars articles are willing to wade through the manuals and game quotes necessary to flesh out the article to meet the standard. --Aspectacle 22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements made. I object to using "cruft" as grounds for nomination. ---Kizor 08:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the common characters of all expansions to the main article, merge each specific expansion characters to the specific expansion articles; each of these will not heavily weight down the respective articles and removes the issue of sub-article notability. Add a "Plot/Story" section to the main Guild Wars article (possibly in lieu or in combination with the current Campaigns section to give a very high-level overview of the theme such that the common characters can be added to it . --MASEM 16:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is completely unnecessary. The plot sections in the separate game articles are undergoing review and in the end there will be no need to merge anything from the characters page. Creating a plot section in the overview article Guild Wars would simply make it exceed the recommended page size without adding any value. Eric Sandholm 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plot summary, and no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. --Phirazo 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT - no indication of real-world notability for any of these characters. Miremare 23:10, 2 November 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.