Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of character classes

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. Krimpet (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of character classes

This article is a mindless collection of tangentially related information. All useful information is held at character class, and creating categories and sub-cats would be a better way of organizing the information (if it is deemed necessary at all). ~~In its current state, the article is a cesspool of crufty WP:OR crap that has little hope of becoming sourced.~~ Changing my stance: while this is source-able, collecting it together in this manner is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's like all those video game weapon lists that have been deleted, except expand it to ponderous proportions because character classes have been featured in so many different games. Axem Titanium 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Axem Titanium 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm not sure how this is different from the countless other lists on this site. A lot of the class descriptions should be rewritten or deleted but it seems a valid list subject. Jordansc 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I haven't made up my mind yet on this, but I don't see the presence of significant quantities of OR. Furthermore, since most of the classes are explicitly sourced to the relevant books and other material, it does satisfy WP:V. JoshuaZ 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't see any particular problem with having a list of what classes are available in what games. Likely not an article I'll be returning to often, but I could see why some people would. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have revised my deletion reason. Axem Titanium 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. If anything the article should be split up and information merged into the main articles if possible. The links at the bottom of the list provide excellent examples of how this should have been done. Imagine what would happen if more people decided to add information on other character classes in other games. Creating lists with no apparent limit to how much could be included is a bad idea. MartinDK 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horribly long, blazingly indiscriminate and an absolute dog to navigate. Each game will have information on their (often complex) class systems in their article. Why you'd want to combine them into one massive list is beyond me.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though certainly with some improvements. Character classes are a valid subject for an article, giving their role in RPGs. This is an adjunct to that page, providing somewhat more detail. However, I do think this would be better off with a good bit of improvement and reworking. The suggestion above of using the bottom section is probably worth following. FrozenPurpleCube 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are mistaken. This is not an AfD for character class, this is an AfD for the List of character classes article which is an indiscriminate collection of information. While a character class article is appropriate, collecting them in this way is not. Axem Titanium 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. An article on character classes in AD&D? Probably ok. Character classes in general, no. The latter constitutes indiscriminate information in my book with an unwieldy criteria. Splitting the article into game-specific articles may be ok, although it should be careful to avoid being a game guide. hateless 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information keeps being referenced but I don't see a subsection of that guideline that this article would qualify under? It's not a travel guide, memorial, etc. For my own clarification, if nothing else, could someone explain how this AFD argument falls under that rule? If anything, it seems like Wikipedia is not a directory under the subsection "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" would be the more convincing argument. Jordansc 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Listcruft is quite clear on what the problem is. There is no limit to the potential size of this list. As it grows larger and larger it becomes an indiscriminate collection of facts. MartinDK 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete role playing games seem to invite infinite variation and arbitrary classification; there is no "authority" that puts all this together, so for WP to do it seems OR. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful collection of well organized information. We make WP articles by finding information in different source and assembling it into an article. Encyclopedic or not, this is not OR. A unsourced essay on the overall development of the concept might be OR, but not this. DGG 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to be addressing any of the deletion reasons I or anyone else here have given. The article is hardly "well organized", "WP:USEFUL" is not a keep reason, and there doesn't seem to be a reason to collect this in one place. Axem Titanium 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it isn't original research doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This list is indiscriminate--there are literally hundreds of electronic and pen and paper RPGs--and unmaintainable--each RPG likely has around 10-50 character classes, and by not stipulating what media these character classes are from the list will grow to huge proportions. I see nothing wrong with an article about D&D character classes as they have complex histories and meaningful purposes, but the majority of classes in electronic RPGs are merely used as an arbitrary way of determining the initial state of the character's stats and/or the progression of them, rather than actually banning that class from using certain skills/spells/materials/etc. Last but not least it has zero references, and because of its sheer size and vast scope it can never be adequately referenced because people will keep adding whatever Japanese RPGs aren't on the list (which is most of them) and not bother to reference what they add. Garrett^Talk 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect* to character class -Rebent 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Garrett --Tellerman
Delete - Above reasons. Character class is sufficient; there's no point in listing character classes from every game in existence. --Scottie_theNerd 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly split into appropriate sublists. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to character class. After reading the main article then taking a peak at the list, it becomes clear that there are unmistakable similarities between classes of different games(i.e. Monk vs Deacon vs Priest vs any other Christian figure). Expand the character class page, and delete this one, because honestly its just wasted space. Sens08 02:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete should be on the game's individual page/character class list, not making a giant list of EVERY CHARACTER CLASS IN VIDEO GAMES AND TABLETOP GAMES EVER HERE. Mrmoocow 01:38, 12 May 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.