Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MySims 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of MySims characters

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

Fails WP:GNG, a long, long list of trivial video game characters fails WP:VGSCOPE No. 6. No notability, no sources to be found. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Since WP:VGSCOPE is a link within MOS:VG, it is a guideline on how to curate acknowledged encyclopedic content, and therefore no legitimate reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jclemens:, I have to ask: why exactly are you voting keep? Because you're not saying why it should stay. I said it fails WP:GNG and didn't respond to that, which, you know, is a pretty important guideline. Just like in this deletion discussion and that one (which were both deleted) you did claim that because I'm saying it fails a guideline that it shouldn't be deleted. On June 29, I asked you to point to the guideline or essay that says "Citing an MOS in a deletion nomination is explicit acknowledgement that if an article were cleaned up appropriately that the nominator believes it would be encyclopedic", which I still haven't seen. So I'm wondering, why are you voting keep? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have advanced no legitimate argument for deletion, or, at best, a self-contradictory one. Every time any editor argues that a style guideline is a legitimate reason for deleting an article, every editor who understands the difference should oppose it on principle. Strike your references to WP:VGSCOPE entirely, rest your case on the GNG, and the problem goes away. Whether or not any individual article is kept or not is not near as important as never letting an MOS mention go unopposed in any deletion discussion. If you don't understand that MOS'es only apply to content that is kept in the encyclopedia, then I don't particularly owe you either a history or a logic lesson, but suffice it to say that there have been plenty of cantankerous folks who have tried to apply the MOS in the most Procrustean manners imaginable, such that any AfD referring to an MOS as support for deletion is clearly more harmful than letting the content in question stay. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the other discussion, WP:VGSCOPE says "Below is a list of content that is generally considered beyond the scope of information of Wikipedia articles on video games and related video game topics". While I'm always up for a history lesson, you could just point me to the relevant guideline that says that a content policy guideline shouldn't be cited in a deletion discussion. WP:PGL? WP:AADD? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style pages are not content inclusion/exclusion guidelines, they're content presentation guidelines. WP:UGLY applies to MOS-based deletion reasons. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps discuss merging notable entries into their parent game pages on talk pages. A quick search shows that some of these characters do get coverage (e.g. King Roland [1] and Morcubus [2]). Jclemens is right in that VGSCOPE does not offer advice on the wholesale deletion of pages, just the removal of cruft from existing articles. The MySims games is part of a major franchise, has several entries, all with reviews of which some do talk about specific characters, so it's not clear that this has to go. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UGLY does not mention anything about guidelines. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information." It does not. Also, WP:NOTINHERITED, a notable franchise does not automatically mean the characters are too. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never brought up UGLY, so I'll respond to the points relevant to my !vote. VGSCOPE 6 is what should be in articles, not what should be articles. Failing it does not in of itself mean it should be deleted, since it could still pass notability guidelines as a stand alone list. As I showed in my !vote, some of the characters do get coverage in reliable sources, so per our deletion policy, alternatives to deletion such as merging should be conidered before wholesale deletion. NOTINHERITED wouldn't apply in this case because some of the list members do get verifiable coverage from RS. If most of the other characters get no coverage, my preference would be to merge the ones with coverage to their individual game pages and then have this page as a redirect to the main MySims page to preserve history.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think coverage is a stretch, Patar knight. In the IGN piece it is a developer explaining their own game and mentions King Roland a couple of times, while the review says "after creating a character, players may jump into the story mode, taking players head on with the main villain, Morcubus. Morcubus runs a company known as MorcuCorp, who has literally taken over the skies". That being said, I'm not opposed to redirecting or merging it into a small section of characters (as long as it is sourced, of course ;-)). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A developer talking in an interview with a reliable source about a character in which three paragraphs (2 on the 2nd page, 1 on the 3rd page) are devoted to a character or even a couple of sentences from a review is significantly better than the norm for character descriptions on Wikipedia (completely uncited, "this is correct as shown in the title work" stuff). Redirecting this to the original game after all mergers wouldn't be a problem, but these characters come from several different games in the MySims series, so any character with coverage would have to be listed under their individual game. That seems like something to be done at the talk page instead of at AfD. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:, I noticed this discussion didn't pop up at WP:VG/AA. You're more articulate than I am when it comes to this, maybe you can take a look at it? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the talk page wasn't tagged for the project--fixed czar 05:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims to coverage above are not credible. To review, this is an 88 kB article with nary a single source. That's 88 kB of primary source cruft when we look to split at 50 kB. If you merge to the main series or individual games articles, we'll be forced to redirect to preserve attribution, but there is otherwise nothing here worth saving. There is nothing exceptional in the sources to warrant a separate treatment of the characters in this series. They can be appropriately handled in their parent articles' Character sections and only split out summary style if/when necessary. Arguing for keeping this schlock based on passing mentions in sources primarily about other parts of the series is out of order. czar 23:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per other "keep" rationales above. If not keep, then at least redirect. Please just don't delete it. The MySims article is an acceptable target, where any coverage these characters get can be covered. Deletion should be a last resort kind of thing, per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD-R. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources have been identified so that the article can be improved with real world content from those sources, merging the article may make other articles cumbersome for loading on mobile phones with poor broadband so a stand alone list is preferable in view of the use by readers. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @Atlantic306:, since when do we have to keep broadband reception in mind when we're discussing deleting or merging articles? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

think we should always keep in mind the best interests of wikipedia's readers. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be another case where people are claiming that reliable sources exist, but most end up being entirely irrelevant. TTN (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2016 (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.