Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.O.W.s (Resident Evil)

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. Fram (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B.O.W.s (Resident Evil)

B.O.W.s (Resident Evil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I belive this article should be deleted, as it does not meet Wikipedia's Nobility standards (WP:N). The article contains neither much real-world information (WP:WAF), nor actual references to verify its claims (WP:Cite WP:OR. WP:A).  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: A lot of it does seem to be fairly redundant as there is also a list of Resident Evil creatures article. Geoff B (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Keeping contribution history public is only an issue if content is merged. Taemyr (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It is also helpful when determining potential admins, i.e. being able to see as much of their edit history as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot of reviewers at WP:RFA are administrators and quite capable of seeing deleted edits. This is a bit silly, but I'll leave it at that. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
A lot aren't as well and I for one would like to know what editors worked on. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "keep" rationale. And practically all candidates at WP:RFA can be evaluated on the edits you can see. If you can't find anything in their regular contributions that suggest that they wouldn't make a good administrator, then they are probably a pretty good candidate. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. Not in the "how to" sense, but in the sense that it would be the kind of detail on the Resident Evil series that would only be found in a gameguide. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic overviews, not a complete catalog of the entire game plot. Randomran (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is a copendium of human knowledge. The subject of this article appear in not just games, but also films, toys, and novels. Thus, it cannot fail gameguide as the subject transcends video games. This article is an encyclopedic overview in the Wikipedic sense and there is nothing to be gained by deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • "There's nothing to be gained by deleting it" should be avoided in deletion discussions. See WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM. If an article is non-notable (even if it is related to an otherwise notable topic), it doesn't belong on wikipedia even if there is "nothing gained" by deleting it. Good luck, Randomran (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The article in question, however, is indeed notable and belongs on Wikipedia as it is consistent per the First pillar with specialized encyclopedias on toys, video games, fictional characters, etc. Verifiable information concerning subjects that appear in a notable franchise and in multiple media are notable and merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Keeping this material adds to the value in Wikipedia. Deleting it only insults those who worked on it and sends a contradictory message to editors, readers, and donors. AfD may not be a vote, but the reality is that in addition to those arguing to keep here, hundreds if not thousands of good faith editors and readers who have been working on and reading this article for nearly two years believe this article is suitable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally&&&-ho! 18:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Explain how the article "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". You are claiming it is notable; I am saying: show me the proof. Graevemoore (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Do a google search and see how many sources turn up, but don't just limit your search to the internet. Published articles like Jeremy Parish, “WTFiction!? Deciphering silly stories: No. 2: Resident Evil,” Electronic Gaming Monthly 224 (January 2008) is all about how these weapons are strange. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Yeah, there's a lot. But none that provide substantial, reliable coverage about these B.O.W.s. And this isn't an AfD for Resident Evil; clearly the franchise is notable. It's about a certain kind of enemy in the game, and I simply don't believe that there exists substantial, reliable coverage about them in particular. Why don't you show me a link or an article that has both (significant coverage and reliability), and I'll change my vote. Graevemoore (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Look at reviews on the toys for example. Also, this is a discussion, not a vote. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • And user reviews count as reliable sources? Again, please point me to a link that is reliable, independent, and contains substantial coverage, and I'll change my voteopinion. Graevemoore (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I recognize the tiny minority opinion of "those arguing to keep". But we shouldn't care how much work has been put into a non-notable article. See WP:EFFORT. It sounds to me like you have a problem with deletion in general. That's a discussion that should take place at a policy level, not in individual AFD discussions. Have fun, Randomran (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The actual majority of editors believe the article should be kept. A handful of deletes that are really "I don't like it" in nature here does not reflect the real consensus. We should care how much work has gone into this notable article. I believe plenty articles should be deleted as seen at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, but this article should not be. In the larger sense, I think a good argument is made at User:Pwnage8#Deletionism vs. Inclusionism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • It's not a vote. If the "actual majority of editors" believe the article is notable, then at least one of them should be able to step forward and prove it. Otherwise, let this one go. If it's not notable then it's cruft. Enjoy, Randomran (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                • It would be irresponsible of me to not defend an article concerning a topic that I know to be notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • How would you measure the responsibility of someone who defends an article with repetition rather than reliable and independent research? Rhetorically, Randomran (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • While using repetition to attempt to get an article deleted rather than partaking in reliable and independent research is unconstructive, defending the article is considerate to those good faith editors working to improve the article, but who do not have my patience for dealing with AfDs. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant, unnecessary gamecruft. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You should read the essays you cite. From WP:ITSCRUFT, Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. Nevertheless, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it is cruft. Until you provide us with independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage of B.O.W's, my view, and the view of every other editor that have commented here, except you, is that this is article clearly falls under WP:NOT#IINFO. Taemyr (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - unreferenced. --EEMIV (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No editor who wants to comment on an AfD is obliged to fix the article in any fashion. For all you know, the editor doesn't know anything about the topic or isn't interested in the topic, but knows our policies and guidelines enough to realize that there are violations of them. Harassing people in this matter is a gross violation of WP:AGF. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The AfD guidelines encourage editors to also make an effort to improve the articles under discussion FIRST. If editors do not know about the articles under question, then it may be somewhat difficult for them to adequately assess the article. In discussions, editors interact and engage with each other. Please stop assuming bad faith. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • There's nothing in any guideline as far as I can see that says that nominators have to improve articles, and per overwhelming precedent, people who nominate AfDs don't work on the articles in question. Anyhow, AfD is a community discussion. You're basically inviting the entire community to come comment on the article itself, which includes people who have never seen the article, are unfamiliar with the topic, have no interest in the subject material, and so on and such forth. This does not mean that they are not fit to review the article, as all is required is a well-intentioned argument. Asking these people to go fix the article because they have identified a problem that warrants deletion is nothing more than plain rude. It's the same as criticizing someone at WP:FAC for identifying problems in the article. The burden is not on them, it's on the article and whoever wants to maintain standards. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Telling people that they have five days to produce sources or else a non-hoax, non-libelous article will be deleted is rude when not every likely source is available online. Anyway, our policies and guidelines list Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and say "Before nominating...please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I do not think this article is obviously hopeless. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
              • "Consider" is the key word and it is not required nor obligated of those who bring forth AfDs that this be done. No one here besides you is saying "OMG, he didn't want to discuss or fix this first, procedural keep and chuck this nomination out the window." Standard practice dictates that this is definitely not the case. Anyhow, the sourcing is here or it isn't. If you find it later, feel free to recreate the article. The burden of proof is on the article, and WP:N is not substantiated by nebulous claims that sources exist somewhere. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                • As this talk page discussion indicates a good deal of editors do in fact believe that editors participating in AfDs should make actual efforts to improve the articles under question. Heck, I even typically make some proactive edits to those articles that I argue to delete in the off chance that they are kept. This particular article is undeniably notable. The BOWs of Resident Evil appear on calendars, toys, in films, in a major game series, in novels, etc. I don't know how much more notable they can be. They are covered in reliable, indepenent game magazines, many of which do not have online archives and which therefore take more than five days to go through. For articles concerning topics that are obviously not made up or are not one time appearances or something, we should give our editors a lot more leeway and respect than to order them to improve the article rapidly or they have to start over and possibly have the article speedy deleted as recreated material when instead we can continue building and working on this notable and verifiable article at our leisure. This is a volunteer project, not something that has to be up to snuff for some published version by the end of the week. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • That discussion supports your stance solely in the case of a fundamental change in the process, and no one there supports the notion that every single AfD !voter has to do some sort of improvements onto an article they don't want to edit or are unfamiliar with. Take an album I've never seen before and of a type of music I don't like but blatantly fails WP:MUSIC. I can still go onto that AfD and !vote "Delete - per WP:MUSIC" and if someone comes along and says, "Go edit that article and improve it. If you want to make any delete !votes, you have to do this." Not only would I think that pretty damn rude, I don't want to edit that article, and I'm a volunteer that can spend my time as I see fit. Anyhow, you claim they have non-trivial coverage in magazines and whatnot, yet I see zero sources to suggest it. If you can't find it, then the article is deleted, it can be userfied, and you are free to recreate it with the aforementioned third party coverage. You can criticize the process all you want, but you're not going to change it in a simple AfD. And yes, we're all volunteers, but this is an encyclopedia that has standards to uphold, not a repository for everything known to man. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • I have already mentioned sources above. Articles only need to be deleted if they are hoaxes, copy vios, nonsense, or libel. There is nothing to suggest that this article does not have potential to be improved or that such efforts are in process. It is rude to expect editors to speed up their efforts on something that has no deadline. The time spent "voting" to delete could actually be spent improving the article. Instead of telling editors, "Well, you better find some sources in five days," why not use the time to make such a statement to help find sources? Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia per its Five pillars, it is a combination of general encyclopedias AND specialized encyclopedias and almanacs. This article may not appear in Britannica, but it is consistent with specialized enyclopedias on monsters, weapons, video games, fictional characters, etc. And it is consistent with the larger encyclopedic tradition: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
        • (re-indent) No, articles are deleted when consensus decides that it should be deleted, which practically every editor here save you has !voted towards. And no, it is not rude to expect editors to find sources. The burden was on them when they created the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Whatever you define as this encyclopedia's scope is totally irrelevant in this context. We care if articles meet WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT, not what subject material they are. No one goes to an AfD, looks at an article, and immediately decides that it warrants deletion because of its subject matter. We care that it follows all our guidelines and policies, and call for changes, deletion or otherwise, when it does not. Both Wales and Diderot are engaging in very broad explanations of what their encyclopedias are that have absolutely no bearing in a specific discussion such as this. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
          • If we assume good faith, then every editor who worked on this article also believes it should be kept, because its was worthy enough for them to work on and must therefore meet their understanding of policy. It is rude to needlessly rush editors to find sources when such sources reasonably exist. There is no deadline that the article must meet a half dozen odd editors' deadline here when it is actively being improved by various other editors. This article meets not my definition of Wikipedia's scope, but the policy's definition of its scope. The article can be verified in reliable sources, thus it meets WP:V. The article conderns subjects that appear in a variety of notable media, thus it is is WP:N. The article is consistent with a bunch of different kinds of specialized encyclopedia, thus it's consistent with WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAIS. It follows all of our guidelines and policies. There is no pressing reason for it to be outright deleted as any concerns with it can in fact be reasonably addressed through improvement. In other words, the concerns expressed here are not insurmountable. Wales and Diderot very much so have a bearing on encyclopedic tradition and their words carry weight in such discussions as this one. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No. (I'd add more but Sephiroth has pretty much covered it.) --EEMIV (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to List of Resident Evil creatures. Arguments about inclusion vs. deletion notwithstanding, after going over the article I find that it is essentially a list article that serves the same purpose as the "List of RE creatures" article. In fact, the 2 articles seem to repeat much of one anothers' info. There seems to be no well-reasoned argument for having 2 list articles essentially devoted to the same subject matter that don't have a substantive difference in content. This article is mainly in-universe character/plot summary and IMHO in its present state probably matches several criteria of WP:NOT, as it lacks real-world commentary and cites zero sources. I am not opposed to the article's subjecty matter per se, but I believe the best way to cover it is in a single article about the series' creatures with encyclopedic, real-world discussion citing reliable published sources. Exactly what scope, discussion and coverage would be best in such an article is a separate discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As the article title is a legitimate search term, even in a worse case scenario we would redirect, but not outright delete this encyclopedic article with real-world notability verifiable in reliable published sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Amended my !vote to merge, as I do think the subject matter is significant, but still don't believe we need 2 articles covering essentially the same stuff (enemies in the video game series). However, I may disagree on it being a legit search term, as the statistics you cite seem to indicate the number of times the page has been viewed, not the number of times the phrase "B.O.W.s (Resident Evil)" has been entered as a search term. The encyclopedic value is a matter of opinion, though as someone who has played the games I do think there is something to discuss here with real-world perspective and 3rd-party sources as the biological weapons thing is the major plot element that drives the series. Most of the info is certainly verifiable, though it is not currently verified as the article is completely unsourced, but this is something that can be fixed. It desperately needs some reliable published source material, particularly of the 3rd-party, real-world context variety, unfortunately I do not have any to add to it at the moment. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete- Gamecruft, no assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid argument for deletion and the article has assertion of notability through reliable source as has already been indicated both above and on the actual article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:V. What few sources are cited fail to provide evidence of notability. Jakew (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • All of these published books contain verfiable and reliable information that can be used to improve and better reference this article. Not to mention articles in various game and toy magazines. Plus, we don't delete if we have valid merge and or redirect locations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid that I don't share your confidence, LGRdC. While there are books about or based upon Resident Evil itself, I performed a Google Books search, and found few references to the subject of this article. Consequently, I am not convinced that this article is sourceable. Additionally, I do not regard a merge as realistic, partly per Marasmusine's arguments, and partly because the lack of sources would mean that whoever performs the merge would bear the burden of sourcing the material. Finally, I see little point in a redirect, as the title strikes me as a highly unlikely search term. Jakew (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I actually have a number of books and magazines that can indeed be used as references for practically all of the b.o.w.s listed in the article as I own a number of game guides and have subscriptions to GamePro, Playstation The Official Magazine, Game Informer, and Electronic Gaming Monthly. My focus now, however, must be on my dissertation. Nevertheless, given time and as we do not have deadlines I should be given time, I have NO doubt that I could reference this article in a suitable fashion that would even in an extreme worst case scenario allow for a merge if not outright being kept. Editors do not need to be rushed on a volunteer project when there is a reasonable chance the article in question could be improved to a reasonable number of editors' standards. Plus, those familiar with the series know the article title to be a legitimate search term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:17, 20 May 2008 (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.