Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of League of Legends champions (2nd nomination)

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. There is actually only one "keep" opinion here, and I largely discount it because it does not address the concerns raised.  Sandstein  15:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of League of Legends champions

List of League of Legends champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list of characters does not meet WP:GNG/WP:NLIST or any criteria for inclusion that justifies the spinout from the main article. Even with the incredibly WP:GAMEGUIDEy lore/powers stuff stripped out, all that remains of value and well-sourced is the lede, which could be merged into League of Legends. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specfic as to why you think this way?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. With rare exceptions, nearly all game characters aren't iconic enough to merit spinoff articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, according to Wikipedia's guideline on stand-alone lists, generally the only type of stand alone list which requires the elements to be article-notable are list of BLP people.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This list is basically WP:Fancruft. sst^flyer 10:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep and cleanup. See rationale from previous AFD nom.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not comment on the first AfD... please explain why you think this should be kept, or at least which opinion from the previous AfD you are referencing. Also, please precise which speedy keep criteria you think this falls under. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arguments made by others on the first nom still stand for this one. This nom falls under SK criterion 3 because I strongly suspect that the nominator glossed over the articles and because of dislike or indifference for the subject decided that it should be deleted.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your claims are that weak, you're much better off sticking to commenting on content, not editors. (Besides, in my experience, Salv seems rather into all these various video game sub-culture topics...) Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the arguments I expected in this AfD, I definitely did not expect someone to assume that I WP:DONTLIKE MOBAs.... that's ridiculous! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolin, as the first nominator, are you accusing me of glossing over the article and simply disliking the subject matter? Is that you questioning Salvidrim!'s integrity? That's a hell of an assumption that you should substantiate before blowing in my general direction. When I nominated this page the first time, I saw a page that featured names, titles, copy-pasted descriptions and in-game statistics. Even now, with copious amounts of time to clean this up, there are only two references, including a first-party one from the League of Legends home page. Now condensed, there is nothing to hint at the individual notability of these characters, so my vote is Delete. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nominator is correct; it's also correct that this is fancruft.  — Scott • talk 08:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs TNT, but I established in the last AfD how these characters are individually the subjects of significant coverage. Most of the characters do not warrant their own articles, but there is plenty of sourcing available (here are the links I pulled for characters at random last time: Shyvana [1][2] Draven [3][4][5][6][7] Syndra [8][9][10][11][12][13]). There's easily enough to write at least a paragraph on each character's noteworthy features, which would necessitate an article separate from the main one. But, yes, as it is, the article doesn't justify the spinout from the main article, though I believe I've demonstrated that there is sufficient sourcing to justify a standalone list. czar 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For others. I'd say that the above sources are not signifiant coverage. All of those websites are dedicated to videogame related stuff, them putting out a piece on a character does not make it nor any combination of said characters notable. GameZone was used for 7 of the 13 sources(more than half), and it's article has been tagged for notability for over almost a year. And GameZone has been around for over 21 years, longer than YouTube and reddit combined, not a good sign. Generally if what's writing about a subject isn't wiki-notable, then the subject isn't either. I suppose something like this would need coverage in national news sources, not just videogame news sites. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sites, including GameZone, were vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS, which is to say that they aren't random blogs. (Being around 21 years would usually be a marker of quality too, no?) It's very common to make lists of things that may not be individually notable but are discussed both as a set and have individual coverage as well. Also I agree that the article is in awful condition—the point is that the topic itself has enough coverage and just needs to be blown up and started again. All things considered, I'm rather amazed at the amount of deletes on this page considering all of the other character articles that are kept with nothing near the degree of potential sourcing this topic has. So, yes, other stuff exists, but please do see the other fictional character articles, especially if you think this type of article requires national sources as a baseline. czar 04:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they weren't reliable, I said they weren't significant. It's averaging maybe, 15 sentences per source? And the sources for individual characters pretty much have the same information. Maybe the thing about GameZone isn't a bad thing, it has been around along time, but so has my local newspaper. It's just that if it might not be wiki-notable and there's other videogame sites that have been around a shorter time, yet they are more well-known and/or respected, maybe it isn't the best source. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The vetted sites have been used at AfD long enough that I don't see your concern. Yes, they are specialty outlets, but they are assumed to be of national than of "local" interest. If you have an issue with a specific one of those links, feel free to raise it, but they should be in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage (not passing mentions). And they were just a random sample... try any one of the other characters in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and see what you get. czar 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Shyvana: [1] - 10 sentences total discounting last section to get 8, [2] - 7 sentences total. For Draven: [3] - 16, discount first two and last two sections to get 9, [4] - "art trailer" video, basically the character being drawn, [5] - 31 sentences, take out first three sections, last section, and "What's the ult going to be like on Draven?", "Another overpowered, brute, executioner. Lovely.", "While Riot is likely to wait until E3 next week to officially unveil Draven's abilities, it seems one site got hold of his abilities early. These haven't been confirmed.", to get 18, most of the other content is WP:GAMEGUIDE info on character moves(abilities), so we're left with a few sentences describing the character, [6] - 16 sentences, could further reduce this and is way too specific, it's about the "skins" of the characters, [7] - 7 sentences, could further reduce this, and it's even more specific, about a "skin" giveaway.

Showing the insignificance of the sources for two of the three characters you gave should be enough. I found that they are, pretty short and can be assumed insignificant, are too specific, have similar information as others, and can you can further reduce them. I shouldn't have to do this for each character since I will likely get similar results. They are pretty much standard "video game news", not even of interest to most gamers, just those who play League of Legends, so I would consider it "local" in the video game world. I don't understand how something like "localised Italian launch nears, players to get free Gladiator Draven skin" [7] can be assumed to be of national interest. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... but having multiple paragraphs of dedicated coverage across multiple sources is itself the marker of significant coverage for the general notability guideline, whether it's seven or 18 total sentences apiece. That is plenty to write a detailed section on each character, replete with out-of-universe context and all. Nothing else to add without going back and forth. These characters are sourced way better than most of the fictional characters I send to AfD. Please do keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements in the future. czar 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't they can be considered multiple paragraphs of coverage if they have an average of less than 10 sentences each when you take out the useless parts and each source says pretty much the same things about the character, minus [4], [6], [7] which are off topic and shouldn't be considered. Just because we can (barely) write a paragraph on something doesn't mean we should.

Also still is WP:GAMEGUIDE "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right". A "League of Legends champion" can be considered a concept. Honestly, when I first saw the title I though it would be about real world champions, like the winners of major tournaments.

From WP:VG/GL: "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much that I can add to this assessment; the quoted coverage is extremely poor and not sufficient to merit the retention of this list.  — Scott • talk 09:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among the dozens of sources on these characters, I'm confident that I could source and write a full article (and that the characters have depth of coverage), but it's a low priority. Do as you will, consensus. But once again, if you think this sourcing is poor, for the love of God, please see the other video game nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. czar 18:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The sources that I've spot-checked have mostly looked like this - reliable sources, sure, but they're not saying anything of substance. I don't feel it meets the WP:GNG or WP:NLIST... Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are the professional League broadcasts, especially the world championships in month, that get tens of millions of views and can be used as a source.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's disputing the game's worldwide popularity. But "broadcasts of world championships with tens of millions of viewers" cannot possibly be considered in-depth/dedicated significant coverage about the fictional characters in independent, reliable sources. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you word it that way, then "worldwide popularity" should be synonymous with WP:GNG, no? The sources people have looked very likely to not including Chinese and Korean language sources. Also, strictly speaking these aren't really fictional characters, these are components of a game, just like pawns and queens are components of chess.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there can be any serious argument about the fictional status of these video game characters (seriously!?), but nobody's disputing that League of Legends meets WP:GNG beyond the shadow of a doubt. The characters (champions), by themselves and on a standalone basis, might not. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is technically a List page it made no sense to group the champions based on their origin since that is not a valid enough classification for these champions in a simple list page in anyones opinions. The simple table should be made collapsible and put on the main page or left as is for the main viewing source of the article (because i made it lol) U Hwotm8 (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This recap of a World's match from is from SB Nation which has generally been seen a Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_17#SB_Nation reliable for sports reporting.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to League of Legends. This is the kind of spin-off article that makes no actual sense to have separately from the game's article. If its content is too detailed for League of Legends, then perhaps it's too much like WP:CRUFT to be around. LjL (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2015 (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.