Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subject Delta (BioShock character)
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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject Delta (BioShock character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable character outside of game. Article is mostly primary source re-iteration of the BioShock 2 plot. MASEM (t) 14:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And it note, there are other characters from BioShock that are notable, but just because other stuff exists, we don't need one here. The informaiton here is duplicative of other BioShock info, but if necessary, there's at least two, three places where what may be unique information can be pulled into. The article title itself is not prime for a search term and thus a simple merge/redirect is not a likely outcome. --MASEM (t) 14:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear delete, Sadads (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing "clear" about a two-word !vote.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without redirecting. I doubt "Subject Delta (BioShock character)" is a likely search term, and there's no content to be merged.--resident (talk) 11:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Content is non-notable, and name will certainly not be a viable search. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Big Daddy (BioShock) as that seems to be the place with the most information about it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to keep this redirect as "Subject Delta (BioShock character)" is not a search term. "Subject Delta" on the other hand is, and is already a redirect to the characters section in the series article on BioShock (maybe not the best location now given BioShock Infinite, but certainly not wrong). In fact, I thought the reason this was named with the disamb'd title was because of other Subject Delta's but that's clearly not the case. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok then. I didn't think about the fact that "Subject Delta" would be the actual article name. It sounds like the type of name that would be a disambag for things. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to keep this redirect as "Subject Delta (BioShock character)" is not a search term. "Subject Delta" on the other hand is, and is already a redirect to the characters section in the series article on BioShock (maybe not the best location now given BioShock Infinite, but certainly not wrong). In fact, I thought the reason this was named with the disamb'd title was because of other Subject Delta's but that's clearly not the case. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above/per nom. Really ;) I've been noticing BillythePuppet (talk · contribs) and his IP, of late; nothing good from this account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted your deletion of the link from the BioShock article. It's prejudicial to do that on a still-open AfD. By all means repeat it, if this closes as delete. I'd also remind you to WP:AGF of all editors: This link addition was perfectly legit, anon dynamic IPs are not always the same human behind them and we should be careful about assuming that they are. In particular, I hope you don't know what BillythePuppet's IP is. This isn't publically visible information on WP and if you are one of the few privileged to know it, you should know better than to broadcast such a connection outside of a formal checkuser. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not familiar with our policy on gaming articles, but we seem to accept character bios on major characters of major games. This is a major character, and it's distinct from the anonymous BioShock 1 Big Daddies. Although not a major character in BioShock 1 (only implied, not even named) the character's role expands significantly for BioShock 2 and so is justified for a descriptive article. As this is the main playable character, I'd even suggest that we might base a gaming notability guideline on such a distinction - we already distinguish those such as Duke Nukem (character) from Duke Nukem the game (and others too numerous to list here). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is based on secondary coverage of a topic - articles from reliable sources that analysis and critique the topic in -depth. While some BioShock characters (eg Andrew Ryan for one) have been given that type of anaylsis, I've never seen any for Delta here. (this is why using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not good for debating AFD) Furthermore, articles that are based only on plot and in-universe elements are strong discouraged (see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF). --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we need sources. However there are two forms of deletion debate: one starts from the point of "notable topic, poor article, how do we improve it" and the other is "Poor topic, kill the article no matter how good". Now I see this as the first case: it's the playable character of a big 1st person shoooter. It would be surprising if that wasn't sourceable. However the !votes above seem to take the second line, that this article shouldn't exist and should be deleted, even without any effort to find sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP's view of notability is not based on importance. It is based on what secondary sources have to say about a topic. There is no evidence through google searching or the like that any secondary source has said something about Delta beyond him being the character in the game. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "WP's view of notability is not based on importance. " I love the way you can say that with a straight face.
- WP's view of notability is not based on importance. It is based on what secondary sources have to say about a topic. There is no evidence through google searching or the like that any secondary source has said something about Delta beyond him being the character in the game. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we need sources. However there are two forms of deletion debate: one starts from the point of "notable topic, poor article, how do we improve it" and the other is "Poor topic, kill the article no matter how good". Now I see this as the first case: it's the playable character of a big 1st person shoooter. It would be surprising if that wasn't sourceable. However the !votes above seem to take the second line, that this article shouldn't exist and should be deleted, even without any effort to find sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is based on secondary coverage of a topic - articles from reliable sources that analysis and critique the topic in -depth. While some BioShock characters (eg Andrew Ryan for one) have been given that type of anaylsis, I've never seen any for Delta here. (this is why using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not good for debating AFD) Furthermore, articles that are based only on plot and in-universe elements are strong discouraged (see WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF). --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprise it may be, but I was already aware of WP:N. I'm also aware of WP:BEFORE, yet there seems to be a prejudicial view in this AfD that the article is a "clear delete", without any attempt being made to find sources. This isn't just a headcrab or mushroom, it's the primary playable character for the whole game. We should be trying to produce an article on this (WP:N notwithstanding) because it's an important character. Hiding behind WP:N and a refusal to do legwork to find sources is "correct", per policy, but it's not useful to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See, you're missing the point, you're claiming we should make this article because it is an important character. That's not how notability works, because, otherwise, I could claim a lot of gaming characters are "important" to have their own articles. There are numerous major characters from top-selling games that simply don't have articles, so that's not an guaranty of being important enough to merit. We're looking for something more objective, and that is what other reliable sources have said about the character. And it is not that I have not looked for sources - I've played the game, so I know what I should be looking for while Google Searching, and I've found nothing useful from reliable sources that talk about Delta in a secondary manner - how the character was developed and how it was received by critics and any legacy to the character. The article can't be improved if sources don't exist. But again, remember that WP places the burden of proof on those that want to keep it; I've done a good faith attempt to find something but can't even though that's not required at all.
- The thing to remember is: we're still discussing the character elsewhere - in BioShock 2, in Big Daddies, in List of Characters in BioSHock - because while notability limited what should get its own article, we can include important aspects within context of a larger topic (notability does not limit that there). It's basically that there's not enough substantial beyond plot reiteration to require a separate article for the character. The phrase "Subject Delta" is still searchable, so people can still find this info. --MASEM (t) 13:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprise it may be, but I was already aware of WP:N. I'm also aware of WP:BEFORE, yet there seems to be a prejudicial view in this AfD that the article is a "clear delete", without any attempt being made to find sources. This isn't just a headcrab or mushroom, it's the primary playable character for the whole game. We should be trying to produce an article on this (WP:N notwithstanding) because it's an important character. Hiding behind WP:N and a refusal to do legwork to find sources is "correct", per policy, but it's not useful to the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2010 (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.