Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Darkstalkers characters (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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 keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Darkstalkers characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of Darkstalkers characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Less than a week ago, I merged the contents of this list into Darkstalkers#Characters after condensing it down. However, Zxcvbnm objected, citing the previous AfD's consensus.

However, I'm not arguing overlying notability for the characters as a whole separate of the franchise (which is a concern on its own vs reception for individual characters, but I digress), but instead that the list itself does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article, without making it too large, the key concerns for such a split here normally.

I don't feel in its current form a massive list is necessary, and I don't forsee it getting expanded further (the last new character added was Dee in 2005, almost 20 years ago). As it stands, there's no need for a separate article to compound our already overflowing list problem. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: For the sake of transparency, this was the version of the list's page prior to reorganizing, which not only included excessive detail randomly, but also random gameplay bits, trivial reception from past merges, and some very questionable sources (EventHubs, "Flying Omelette"?). The goal of the original reduction was to aim closer to more streamlined lists, and then cite any information as needed. This got interrupted mid-cleanup efforts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming no information is being lost, I am not opposed to a merge to Darkstalkers#Characters. CaptainGalaxy 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2: Electric Boogaloo Similar to the last AfD, deletion is not cleanup and there's no particular reason a character list should not exist, as these sorts of articles are VERY well established on Wikipedia. It was shown that the article can certainly stand on its own if improved, as the cast of Darkstalkers is one of the more well-known in video game history. "Overflowing list problem" is a personal opinion and it's impossible to tell whether or not it will be improved, as you are no fortune-teller. That's simply a WP:NOEFFORT argument. If you really want to see it fixed, your time's better spent fixing it than arguing it should be removed. See also WP:BEBOLD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zx your argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because "other articles" are established does not mean that one cannot be merged. This not a "No Effort" approach or a lack of "Being Bold", that's an honest observation from someone that has put a fair share of research into this subject. Additionally this is not an attempt at "cleanup" but to make an argument that the list itself does not need to be separate from the parent, which is fair game for AfD to determine consensus. So I will ask that you assume some good faith, and to not be rude.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not fall under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because I am not arguing this article should be kept because it's the same as another particular article. I said that this TYPE of article is common, which implies it is typical under Wikipedia policy. Unless you are arguing that all character lists should not exist, which is not really an issue to be decided in a single AfD, but something like RfC. I didn't mean to marginalize the effort you put into the merger, but cutting something down tends to be easier than building it up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does feel like the argument fits into a form of OTHERSTUFF, because the argument's being made that similar lists are considered "acceptable" on their own on wikipedia, which is debatable on a case by case basis. And I feel significant effort was done to maintain the reader has an understanding of each character in the context of the franchise. If all the information is retained in the series article as it is in the list, how is any information lost?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This makes the other article too long if put there. Having it separate makes it more readable. Kung Fu Man made the article in October 2008‎. It was far longer through most of its existence. In December 2023, Kung Fu Man reduced it from 84K to 15K. [1] 104 references down to 7. I think some of the referenced information where reliable sources talked about the characters should be included. Also the overview chart showing which games had which notable characters should've been kept. Dream Focus 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the refs appear to have shuffled off to standalone character articles so no information appears to have been lost. — Masem (t) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is only one standalone character article, Morrigan Aensland, the rest are just redirects to here. Kung Fu Man seems to have merged them over here last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_Bonnie_Hood&diff=1154824604&oldid=1154823810 Dream Focus 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Given KFM's work on character articles and cleaning up bad sourcing, I trust that these trims and removal of sources followed in line with eliminating sources that barely touched on the subject, along with excessive primary sourcing. This judging from a scan of the ore trimmed version and where sources were used. Masem (t) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I will say that I would have objected more to the mergers of the various characters if I knew that the character list was set to be merged too. Moving them all to a list is due weight. Moving them all to the series article is undue weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is an important point that bears a lot of scrutiny. Non-transparently planning to eliminate content via repeated mergers is arguably tendentious editing. You want 'em all gone? Fine: nominate them all. Don't merge them all editorially... and then force a re-merge in AfD so there's very little left. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This, plus many perfectly reliable sources demonstrating WP:LISTN were purged from the character list for some reason and I frankly have no clue why they were removed, with the only thing I can think of being to make the article seem less notable for a deletion or merge. Why purge the character list from HG101, or GamesRadar? It makes no sense; this is literally a list of characters from the game, so it's absolutely relevant. I tried to add a bit back in, but I'm of half a mind to revert the article gutting entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You know, considering that you had just previously took umbrage over the implication that you were applying double standards based on whether an article whose notability is being questioned is one you made or not, I find it kind of distasteful to go around and suggest an editor in good standing is, in essence, intentionally doing harm to the project for nefarious purposes. I don't think it's right to show such offense over that if you do not extend the same level of courtesy to other users. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Policy and guidelines argue against unnecessary splits of material, and the nom demonstrates that a merged article is nowhere close to a size problem where a split would be required. Add that there are no non-primary sources, and that supports including the content in the main article to avoid notability issues with the list. Zxcvbnm's argument amounts to a form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; character lists like this with minimal sourcing are tolerated but I would not consider them widely accepted.Masem (t) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Speedy Keep The topic of "List of X characters" is "X" so as long as Darkstalkers exists List of Darkstalkers characters is not subject to deletion on notability grounds. NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, because this is the same topic covered in multiple articles. Now, if things fail V or NOR, that's a different issue, but usually one that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion. More to the point: of all the problems in Wikipedia, who thinks that collapsing character lists into their franchises is in the top 10? Jclemens (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clemens, not a single thing there addressed my argument.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I suppose. What precise DEL#REASON applies? Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content fork in this case: the information here can fit inside the series article without a loss of material, and stuff like development and reception would apply just as much to the series as the list. No information would be lost, and no need to keep them separate. Articles can still be spun out from the series page just fine also if notability is established for a character later on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing how a character list is an impermissible WP:CFORK. It's neither redundant nor a POV fork. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's currently an unnecessary fork, and an argument can be further made that it strengthens the body of the series article as a result versus separate from it, and again the dev and reception info would be echoed between the series article and list. It's not a Street Fighter or Guilty Gear situation where we have entry upon entry for many of the characters: Darkstalkers at its core only has two truly "full" games between Darkstalkers/Night Warriors and the many iterations of Vampire Savior.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If all you want is to merge the articles, why is this a nomination for deletion instead of just a merge request? It seems like doing this at AfD just makes the discussion more stressful. Toughpigs (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Information from the article is still in the series article currently, so "Redirect" is a valid option here. But more importantly is that it was quickly obvious this was going to be a contentious subject. AfD is viable for this sort of discussion, especially compared to how much of a mess merge discussions have become where they stretch months on end before requesting a closer, at least as far as VG project articles go.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you've just admitted that there is no reason this content is impermissible: No WP:CFORK violation exists, no other WP:DEL#REASON applies. Am I wrong? If so, please point me out the policy-based rationale for starting this deletion discussion. I'm just not seeing it. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, the content on the list can fit into the main series article just fine without a loss of information; the current series article demonstrates that. Can we not engage in wikilawyering?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering is defined as "Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities". Asking for a basic policy reason when you gave none (besides "it's not necessary", more of a WP:USELESS argument) is not a technicality. There's something wrong if you think that anyone who dares argue a different opinion is being a Wikilawyer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upgrading my keep to speedy keep per #3: no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Look, I'm fine with using AfD as articles for discussion--I quite favor it, in fact--but the price of entry is that you have to provide at least one rationale by which the target article could be deleted. I've asked. You haven't. So you can take this to a talk page discussion, but AfD should not be asked to compel a merge outcome when there is no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone point me in the right direction of the policy towards where a list merits an article? Or...is there any policy on lists? Putting aside the threshold notability of the parent subject matter and the items that sit under it, am I correct that it's then just a pragmatic debate about whether the list is sufficiently long, detailed or complex to justify separation from the article about the subject matter? That stands to reason to me. If so, I imagine the issue is then just a disagreement over whether listifying things is preferred in any particular case; whilst I don't really like lists with few sources at all, that doesn't mean it attracts deletion policy unless it is short, lacks depth, and/or could easily sit within the parent article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vrxces See WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN. And no, it's not precise. Maybe we need to have an RfC on estabilishing criteria for lists of characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, there is an enduring issue with notability for articles and lists relating to fictional characters and more guidance is needed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The closest thing we have is WP:NLIST which is as vague to when lists can be made into articles. However, I know that fictional character lists without a significant amount of secondary sources on development and reception of the characters, and excessive primary details, are only grudgingly accepted across WP. Masem (t) 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per my comment in last AfD which was just a month ago. I am also not impressed by the stealthy attempt to delete by redirecting that took place at Felicia (Darkstalkers), which I now restored. That article deserves a proper AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. I've added something discusing the cast as a group to the reception section, which, well, did not exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLAR-ing is supposed to be a viable alternative to AfD if we feel it's reasonable. That's not a "stealthy attempt to delete", that's the results of a very length WP:BEFORE and examination of the sources, it wasn't done in bad faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then use AfD. That was not a good topic to BLAR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLAR is specifically for uncontroversial topics, not just ones you think are reasonable. As WP:BLAR says, ""Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial [...] cases of blanking and redirecting." The majority of video game characters should be considered controversial to merge unless the page is WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It's not about whether the list meets LISTN or not, it's about whether there needs to be a split in the first place. KFM has proven that this list reasonably fits within the Darkstalkers article without disrupting it, so I don't see a need for an unnecessary content fork here. Arguments above have been ignoring the core argument of this AfD, which is about whether or not this split is necessary. NLIST isn't being argued here, that can be established, it's whether or not we really need this article to be separated. Based off what I'm seeing, I don't think a split is necessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: I am unsure if you are aware, but the article was pared down to a tiny fraction of its former size prior to being "merged", including removal of numerous WP:RS. It fits in its current, barely-there state, but not in its previous fleshed-out one. I don't think much has been "proven" here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any cut characters. The only issue I see is that RS were removed, and if that is the case, simply add them back to the article. One or two articles per character (Which seems pretty unlikely) should not bloat the article to a significant extent. This seems like a matter that can be resolved by simple editing, and if the article does in fact achieve significant bloat by adding the sources to its current state, then that can be a separate split discussion. The size is manageable, and further discussion should have been done before a BLAR revert. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: This is what you really want to defend as "fleshed out"? Really? The one with Eventhubs, "FlyingOmelete", and leftover gameguide commentary from past merges?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources really were unreliable, yes - there were a number of blatant blogs that failed WP:USERG outright. But you are cherry-picking the absolute worst sources that for sure should have been removed. You also deleted many usable sources, so it was, in the most charitable interpretation, a rushed, "baby out with the bathwater" situation. Why was a full article on Anakaris from VentureBeat written by a WIRED journalist deleted despite being SIGCOV? Such things completely torpedo your argument that all the cleanup you did was of poor sources, and that the characters cannot be expanded within the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did jump in on this during an ongoing effort to clean it up and rework the series article as a whole, a long term effort not unlike those you do. The list was merged less than a weak ago, and had an AfD disrupt things to boot. Stuff like VentureBeat wasn't worked back in *yet*, but it also doesn't say a lot and can be taken down to a sentence. For comparison, the List of generation I Pokémon is being worked on by cogsan, and many of those Pokemon undoubtedly have at least one SIGCOV article somewhere, but one also has to consider the list as a whole. That said it feels like some of this could be ironed out on my talk page instead of muddying this discussion further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a longterm effort at cleanup, gutting and/or blanking this article is the very wrong way to go about it. It should remain untouched, and a new draft created elsewhere until it is ready to replace the existing content. At that point you can start a merge discussion using the draft as evidence. It still doesn't mean deleting this article wholesale is merited at all regardless of how poor quality you think it is right now. Currently there is no replacement for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep On one hand, I strongly agree with the nominator that the listification approach can be redundant and often produces poor-quality articles where the subject matter is better canvassed within the primary article. But in the context of this article, editors worked to improve the quality and merge non-notable characters to it, stripping the pretty wide (if highly flawed) sourcing in the purpose. Fighting games also strike me as having appropriate separated character articles because the characters tend to have significant attention as the narrative and gameplay anchor for the games. Although noting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is a commonplace practice of having character lists accompany the article: such as for Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, which originally didn't look too dissimilar to how this used to be honestly. It feels like there's not a settled approach to the future of this that has been exposed by the deletion nomination, and because there is not a self-evident notability issue the direction should be to err on the side of caution. No expert on this stuff though - as stated above there's not a lot of guidance on where the best approach lies for character articles and fictional lists. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ＶＲＸＣＥＳ Offering some food for thought, but I feel a big thing to consider with that comparison is that MK, Street Fighter and KoF also have had 10+ games each to build canon from for their characters. Darkstalkers, as a series has only had two: Night Warriors is a re-release of Darkstalkers with two characters and the bosses playable, while every game after is just a modified version of Vampire Savior, story and all. When distilled there really isn't much story per character, or traits.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has done searches for Darkstalkers characters, there's very little sigcov on the cast. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD2.0, we were just debating this article a month ago. I'm relisting the discussion as opinion is split between those editors advocating Keeping the article and those supporting a Merge. One editor states that the nominator is arguing for a Merge, is that accurate? No one is supporting an outright deletion, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The nominator is very clearly arguing for a merge, as they stated "does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article", which is a merge rather than deletion argument. They acknowledge the notability of the cast but nevertheless believe it should be merged as after they cleaned up what they believed to be poor sources, the article became a hollow shell. In its current state, the article could be merged with nothing lost, however, many of the sources they removed are perfectly good, viable SIGCOV and their deletions resulted in a net loss of information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sigcov was removed? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx I'm just going to be blunt, that's hogwash. The issue is WP:NOPAGE: the information in this article can fit neatly inside Darkstalkers#Plot (as it currently does), and the development and reception info is going to be the same for the series as for the list. There's no need for a separate list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, I know claims don't mean much without evidence, so here's proof of the significant sources that are not in this version. As mentioned above, an article on Anakaris was removed, and the significant coverage from Den of Geek is still AWOL for no apparent reason, despite also having a full character list of the original roster and a bit of analysis. The character list from Hardcore Gaming 101 was purged to the aether until I added it back myself. At the time of the AfD the character roster from GamesRadar+ wasn't there either. Some of the articles were truly trivial/unreliable coverage, but yeah - baby with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to ask a dumb question, but wouldn't Den of Geek's article make more sense in the series article given it's reception on, well, the series? As for Anakaris' it is it's entirely about the character's gameplay which would be hard to work in; I mean many characters on List of generation I Pokémon have similar articles, would you argue those should be worked into there as well?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could be used for both articles, certainly. I am unsure why it would be disqualified from use in a character list however, as significant coverage is not required to be the focus of the source material. And "entirely about the character's gameplay"... it's perfectly reasonable to use an article about the gameplay as a source. I don't see anywhere in policy that bans such a thing, frankly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. while gameplay coverage from secondary sources should be incorporated into our video game coverage, we don't want to pull gameplay from primary sources like gameplay guides. — Masem (t) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's clearly some confusion here about what WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE actually means. It states that writers should "Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context". It's not a blanket prohibition of anything talking about gameplay, only specifies that guides should not pop up apropos of nothing, like just wanting to write a FAQ for the cool new game that just released. None of the sources I gave are primary; all are secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - So, it seems the main argument here is that the article isn't "needed." But on the other hand, I don't see any convincing reasons on why the article shouldn't exist either. In its current state, you can argue that it fits fine in the series article, but I also see WP:POTENTIAL for some expansion. There are some articles discussing some of its characters, such as from Game Rant, The Gamer and GamesRadar. MoonJet (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of these sources give at most a sentence of commentary on the characters as a collective, focusing more on giving short snippets towards the individual members. There's not enough in any of these articles to really buff up this one substantially, and I'd argue that your argument as a whole falls under WP: NOPAGE. If it doesn't need to exist and can be better covered at another article, than it should be. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, seeing as Felicia will soon almost surely be merged per AFD result, that will leave Morrigan as the only Darkstalkers character with their own article. Surely there could some discussion on some of the characters merged in there, even though it proved to be not quite enough for their article? Demitri also had has own article, until fairly recently, for example. Keep in mind that WP:LISTN notes that one way to establish notability for lists is to have sources that discuss the set as a group, not the only way. In any case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a valid split here. You don't. MoonJet (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's enough for a split, maybe, but most of the commentary is very fleeting for the bulk of the characters. There's probably a good chunk for recently merged characters like Felicia and Demitri, but most won't have that, and those chunks can likely be covered in the main Darkstalkers article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [2][3][4][5] Rjjiii (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two articles have already been cited by Moonjet above and the other two suffer from similar reasons as above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2024 (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/List_of_Darkstalkers_characters_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1217026615"