Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank West (Dead Rising)

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. TTN (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Frank West (Dead Rising)

Frank West (Dead Rising) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; no need to have separate articles on each character, and if another article is needed then they should be all on one page, like with Characters of Kingdom Hearts and Organization XIII. The main article handles things sufficiently enough for now. And it's unsourced (the end bit is false I believe) and basically reiterates the plot, which is a big no-no for WP:FICT.Keep, my mistake in not Googling his name. The article as it is now shouldn't be up for deletion. L337 kybldmstr (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Kybldmstr. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as per all of the above. This article is currently covered in the main article Greg Jones II 00:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. No real-world context. Eusebeus (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Copied over to StrategyWiki:Dead Rising/Characters. -- Prod-You (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is a notable character, he is the main protagonist of a best selling critically acclaimed game link. Plus, he has become quite big in popular culture garnering 40,300 hits on Google link. Smile Lee (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it concerns a notable character from a notable game for a notable system for which verifiable information clearly exists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep This is a bad faith nom by TTN and unsuprisingly, his pals have shown up. He's the subject of an arbcom case related to his drive by redirecting, utter incivility and edit warring over such activity. He only nominated this article for deletion when I noticed he had redirested this article against consensus. He has not followed any of the steps on the main AfD page that should be taken prior to nominating the article for deletion so this nomination is out of order. AfD states: "Consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content." Has he made any effort to request this article improved prior to deletion? Is there any discussion of his redirect that he's taken part of on the discussion page for the article? Of course not. This should be closed due to his attempt to WP:GAME the system. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No sources is a problem that cannot be fixed by any amount of effort or tagging. TTN has done nothing wrong, as deletion is the only real option. It is the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources, WP:PROVEIT. Jay32183 (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The amazing bad faith of TTN and his improper conduct throughout wikipedia has caused him to come up against an Arbcom panel and this cannot be denied away so easily. Circumventing the proper procedures IS a problem and one which I've noted in my original statement here, and you seem to have, conveniently, disregarded. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at your own history, do you EVER vote keep? Seriously. Do you contribute to this encyclopedia or simply take part in deletions? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Note I've done some searching and have added more out of universe material to this article. I'm still hunting for more. Perhaps this will help overcome some of the deletionist arguments that it lacks out of universe material. I'm also strongly considering removing the huge chunk of "plot" detail from the center of the article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • The process was followed perfectly, and even if it weren't a perceived procedural error does not negate some one's point. "There are no sources, delete" is not a deletionist argument. If you actually read and understand policy and guideline then it is impossible for you to be either an inclusionist or a deletionist. In fact, those terms are very insulting when said to people who based their arguments on policies and guidelines. The deletion argument here is based on WP:PLOT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:N, WP:V (especially the WP:PROVEIT section), WP:RS, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. Deletionists make arguments like I don't like it or I've never heard of it, which aren't acceptable arguments at an AFD. Generally, I don't argue for keeping articles because well sourced articles almost never get nominated. If some one were to bring a article that actually showed significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic, I would be in favor of keeping that. Jay32183 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Then based on the sources that I've included today, will you change your "vote?" I've provided multiple independant sources which cover this character from multiple points. Thanks and I look forward to seeing your contributions to the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (!vote changed below) Why the accusaions of bad faith? The nom has brought up a valid point and was reverted when he tried to redirect, so afd is a perfectly logical next step. This article doesn't even claim notability, let alone prove it, and if anyone really believes it's notable per Wikipedia's definition of the word, they need to prove that it's true rather than just insist that it's true. Miremare 14:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply The bad faith accusations stem from the way the nominator deals with challenges to his one man drive by redirect crusade. If you want more information on this, please see the associated ArbCom case which is in progress dealing with the behavior and reaction to it by others. [1] In this case, his bold redirect was challenged and rather than trying to discuss this on the talk page, he decided to jump past all the guidelines on the afd page and decided to try to get the article deleted rather than work with others since the consensus on the discussion page was strongly against him and he felt this would be a more sympathetic outlet. See this link where one of the parties in the arbcom has provided evidence of him saying precisely that: [2] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Possibly TTN could stand to engage in a bit more discussion, but I don't believe (in the case of this article's nomination at least) that there's been any breech in procedure. You suggest using the cleanup, disputed, or other tags prior to afd, but it really comes down to what the editor in question believes it is possible to achieve with each individual article. If he believes a clean up or whatever other process wouldn't address his concerns, there would be little point in doing it. This would appear to be the case, or at least applicable, here. Miremare 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Since I've added real world context in an attempt to establish the notability you sought, I'd ask you to read over the article and consider changing your vote. I'll try to add to this, but I've limitted time since its a holiday weekend and all. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as he is the main character of the game (which is quite popular) and there is in fact real-world context in the article about the creation of the character. If there is "no assertion for improvement", then the right way to fix that is to put a tag on the article. — brighterorange (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• For the real world information to establish notability, it must be impossible to cover it in the main article. It looks like it'll fit in with the main article's development section just fine. TTN (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the hell you came up with that but it certainly shows you do not understand FICT at all. There is no such condition that it must be "impossible to cover" in the main article. "Impossible to cover in the main article", technically we'd have no character articles if we ignored stylistic and length concerns and just added huge blocks of text related to characters in the mai article, but this would make those articles unwieldy, unmanageable and unreadable. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The main problem here is really the lack of significant coverage in independent sources. For example the whole character development section is based on a couple of lines in an interview. Miremare 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, and? Its a quote from the bloody designer of the game on an notable independent site. It establishes that the character was noted by an independent source. I've added material where this character was the subject of a piece on MTV, was discussed in relation to the gay lifestyle on a LGBT focused news source, and now on IGN. The question that the character is noted by news sources is closed, he has been. This has always been a question of clean up not deletion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I mean is, a quote from the designer of the game justifies the character design section, but doesn't provide notability. I don't know how much coverage the character receives in the MTV source, as it's viewable only in the US for apparent copyright reasons, but the innewsweekly.com and ign.com sources don't give him any more coverage than game reviews ever give the main character, and the gamespy interview never even actually mentions Frank by name. I think the info in the article would be better suited to a section on Frank in the Dead Rising article. Miremare 17:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"The main character". Sure it doesn't have his name, but there is only one main character, one protagonist. I'd love to be able to translate interviews with him from the Japanese, but that's not a skill I have... and without that I'm doing the best I can. The character receives significant coverage. It does not need to be exclusive coverage. The MTV.com segment certainly is all about Frank tho. :P Its too bad you can't see it, its mirrored on the gaygamer.net site so if you want to find it.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it's referring to him as "the main character", I'm just questioning the significance of the character's coverage in an article that doesn't mention the character's name. Got a link for the mirror of that video? Miremare 18:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[3] Keep in mind, Dead Rising is terribly tongue in cheek and this video is very much in the same spirit. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that one's all about him then. This is a close run thing, and I'm not really very sure, but I'm going to change to neutral verging on keep. Searching through the Google results reveals that while there are few reliable sources actually concentrating on him as the major theme, various reviews do seem to dwell rather more on him than the average game character. I suppose it all comes down to interpretation of significant coverage, and it's too close to call for me. IMO this uncertainty defaults to keeping the article and that, coupled with the sources previously mentioned, is the reason for my change of heart. I'd really like to see the article's referencing expanded as much as possible though. Miremare 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. :P I also snagged another dealing with his "clothes". Oh Capcom, why do you make such hilarious games! And thanks for changing your vote. :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Information If you look at the history (linked above), you will see that TTN has taken the bold move of removing a reputable source from the article this morning. One wonders what his goal was? MTV.com is no joke, sorry. Comment He's done it again. If he removes it again, I will not revert, however I'd like everyone to note that he is removing content describing the character design, the motivations of the character design team and other real world perspective from an article he's claimed is lacking in such. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merge content back to Dead Rising. The character development info can be added to that article's dev section; reception re: character can be added to reviews (though I don't think they strongly support the character). However, standalone, even if missing this MTV source, that's still not enough to support this article alone. --MASEM 00:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - there are enough sources for a well written and verifiable character article, with real-world context. User:Krator (t c) 00:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Withdraw - This has stalled, so there is no reason to continue with it. TTN (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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.