Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters in Call of Duty
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 No consensus (default keep). I suggest a serious attempt be made to remove crystalballery, POV content, and OR and then in a few months, if this still seems unacceptable, to try AfD again. It was simply too difficult to argue for its deletion with arguments that really call for editing to counter the plethora of keep recommendations. Many of the participants of this AfD referred to guidelines as policies, and essays as guidelines, and wikiprojects proposals and other editors comments elsewhere as precedent. Everyone involved should do a little homework before a round two, so future discussions can be less messy and more on-point. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Characters in Call of Duty
Characters have no notability in of themselves. Almost all of the material is included in the various articles for each iteration of the game. Much of the article currently is being used for speculation as to the fates of characters in Call of Duty 4, something that is completely original research per that page's talk page consensus, hence this article is being used as a POV fork. Also, reads very much like a game guide. Lacking any significant sources as well. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep I thought the running consesnus was the it is better to have lists of characters rather than having to fend off page creation of each one, piecemeal. I know that there are character lists for other games out there. But the OR and sourcing problems probably need to be worked out.Protonk (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If that's your only reason, then we should delete. There is no "running consensus". See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'd recommend a delete for individual character articles too. That said, if we don't delete this non-notable list, I'd support a merge into the Call of Duty (series) article. Randomran (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm clearly not making an Other stuff argument. There is guidance from WP:CLN and WP:SAL that can help us out here. I would also suggest that it is a HUGE waste of time to attempt to start new on every AfD. If we have some precedent with which to work, then we can maybe adopt that precedent to fit the current, specific case. In this case, there may be a precedent of keeping game character lists when the individual characters are not notable as long as some reliable, verifiable source can be found to support the notion that they are notable in toto. That is different from saying other stuff exists. For me to make THAT argument, I would have to say, X game list exists, therefore Y game list is justified in existing regardless of the complaints against it. Do you think that is the argument I have made? Also, this policy provides some direct guidance on the subject. Nothing on the list there directly prohibits what is on this article (with the possible exception of #7, which is only proposed, not enacted). Of course, the absence of prohibition does not imply endorsement. But we might as well be clear when we are talking about policy and consensus. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If that's your only reason, then we should delete. There is no "running consensus". See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'd recommend a delete for individual character articles too. That said, if we don't delete this non-notable list, I'd support a merge into the Call of Duty (series) article. Randomran (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Protonk. --GHcool (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is the preferred way to do it, rather than to have individual articles of the minor characters, or try to handle it in one long and confusing article. How far to subdivide it is an editorial matter, not one for AfD. DGG (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Heaps undue weight on lightweight characters and 'silent protaganist' player characters. There is nothing here which warrants a separate character section within individual game articles, let alone a character article. They're plot elements, cover them in plot. It is much better to have a self-contained list for characters, but that's assuming that the characters have enough depth to warrant one. Too often the focus on characters is pushed beyond the point of bloody silly. Someoneanother 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Protonk.--SkyWalker (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As long as it is not being used as a POV fork-- Protonk is right this is better then a bunch of septate articles SirBob42 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Most characters very uninportant and could eaisy fit and pertaine to thier respective articles. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 19:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't see why a character article would be warranted for minor characters and the silent protagonist of each game. There's hardly any content to place for these, and it would be much better covered within the respective plot sections of each article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists. Coherent, verifiable, discrminate, organized, and notable list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete: clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. Another way of looking at it is this is a WP:NOTABILITY issue, where game is notable but the characters in it are not (by themselves) notable. I agree this is better than multiple small articles. Even better would be no article at all. Post a link to a fansite from the main article and let this one go. Randomran (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ITSCRUFT. A list of characters is not a "how to", which is what the gameguide guidelines concern, i.e. cheat codes and the like. The characters of a notable series on multiple platforms are notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to main article - Please read WP:GAMECRUFT. Articles should offer an "encyclopedia overview of what the game is about", and not "an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. Such topics should be moved to one of the gaming wikis: Encyclopedia Gamia for general info/trivia...". That's where this kind of stuff belongs belongs. Notability is not inherited. A notable series, yes. But this clearly fails WP:N because the characters are not independently notable. Summarize it and merge it into the main article, or transwiki it to a game guide wiki. Randomran (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not take arguments with the nonsense "word" cruft in them as valid per other editors. Moreover, notability is inherited. The characters are collectively notable in a list article of this nature. Per our first pillar, we are also a specialized encyclopedia and such material is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on video game characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Correction: Whether you like the word "cruft" or not, I'm citing a policy that you should acquaint yourself with. You, on the other hand, are citing a single revision in some AFD discussion a few months ago. And while WP:NOTINHERITED isn't a policy, it is an essay you should acquaint yourself with. We always, always judge the notability of a topic independent of its "parent" article. Randomran (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is NOT a policy, but a guideline and there's a difference. Plus, it even says on the top of the page that "it is not set in stone". The article is consistent with a policy about specialized encyclopedias and verifiability. We do NOT judge the notability of a topic independent of its parent article when we deal with spinoff articles or sub-articles. Notability is absolutely inherited in this case and even if it wasn't, which it is, the characters are themselves notability in that they appear in multiple games on multiple systems and are verifiable in multiple publications. Anyway, you should acquaint yourself with User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yet another correction - see WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. Saying that the notability rule is only a guideline and shouldn't be followed is inaccurate. Making up your own rule is even worse. I'm all for keeping articles around, and avoiding deletion where an article can be salvaged. But I've seen ZERO attempt to assert this is notable other than to assert that the parent article is notable. Which is irrelevant to this discussion, per WP:INHERITED. That's in addition to policies like WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT -- which whether you like the language or not, restricts wikipedia from describing trivia in every single game. We give broad overviews of topics, not lists of every item/weapon/character/setting. Transwiki this article and let it go. Randomran (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Additional corrections - The article passes our notability guidelines and if you click on the examples in the arguments to avoid essay, it also notes that declaring notability not being inherited is also to be avoided as it clearly states that sometimes it is. Whether you like the language or not, the policies and guidelines are worded in such a manner that permits this article to remain. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yet another correction - see WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. Saying that the notability rule is only a guideline and shouldn't be followed is inaccurate. Making up your own rule is even worse. I'm all for keeping articles around, and avoiding deletion where an article can be salvaged. But I've seen ZERO attempt to assert this is notable other than to assert that the parent article is notable. Which is irrelevant to this discussion, per WP:INHERITED. That's in addition to policies like WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT -- which whether you like the language or not, restricts wikipedia from describing trivia in every single game. We give broad overviews of topics, not lists of every item/weapon/character/setting. Transwiki this article and let it go. Randomran (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is NOT a policy, but a guideline and there's a difference. Plus, it even says on the top of the page that "it is not set in stone". The article is consistent with a policy about specialized encyclopedias and verifiability. We do NOT judge the notability of a topic independent of its parent article when we deal with spinoff articles or sub-articles. Notability is absolutely inherited in this case and even if it wasn't, which it is, the characters are themselves notability in that they appear in multiple games on multiple systems and are verifiable in multiple publications. Anyway, you should acquaint yourself with User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Correction: Whether you like the word "cruft" or not, I'm citing a policy that you should acquaint yourself with. You, on the other hand, are citing a single revision in some AFD discussion a few months ago. And while WP:NOTINHERITED isn't a policy, it is an essay you should acquaint yourself with. We always, always judge the notability of a topic independent of its "parent" article. Randomran (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I do not take arguments with the nonsense "word" cruft in them as valid per other editors. Moreover, notability is inherited. The characters are collectively notable in a list article of this nature. Per our first pillar, we are also a specialized encyclopedia and such material is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on video game characters. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or merge to main article - Please read WP:GAMECRUFT. Articles should offer an "encyclopedia overview of what the game is about", and not "an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. Such topics should be moved to one of the gaming wikis: Encyclopedia Gamia for general info/trivia...". That's where this kind of stuff belongs belongs. Notability is not inherited. A notable series, yes. But this clearly fails WP:N because the characters are not independently notable. Summarize it and merge it into the main article, or transwiki it to a game guide wiki. Randomran (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then allow me to return to something that is official policy. WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." And if you say that this has inherited notability, then you have to explain why. They are not instantly notable - whether inherited or not - simply because they are characters in a medium. You need to provide an argument for why this article is exempt from policy. You again state that they "are verifiable in multiple publications", but you have produced only one viable source and that does not give any substantial information that warrants a separate article. If it is true that they are significantly covered in the non-trival third-party reliable sources that demonstrate notability - as outlined in WP:N - in the real world, not in the series, then produce them. The one GameSpot source you've produced is only useful for verifing who the characters in a single game are, it does not offer any infomation on real-world aspects. And stating that something is just a guideline and we don't have to follow it is not a good way to enhance your argument either. -- Sabre (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- At least one reliable, third party source has been found and we know the topic is covered in a variety of published primary sources and it is reasonable to suspect that they are likely covered in at least some published game magazines. These games are played by people in the real world and these publications are read by people in the real world. Thus the characters in Call of Duty have significance to the real world. Heck, they even made action figures of some characters from the games. So in a sense you can have play with or display some characters in the real world. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said, the GameSpot article does not give the signficiant coverage to develop the proper aspects of the article: you can use it to cite who the characters are, but beyond that its useless. And you seem to confuse what is meant by real-world. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, so simply because something is used in real-world does not mean that it is notable - because that would be absolutely everything on the planet. See WP:WAF#Secondary information - real-world information on a fictional subject is not that someone who actually exists once used it somewhere, but is information on the creator, the design and the development, factors that have influenced development, popularity among the public, reception by critics and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. That is the sort of information you need to get. Toys are good from this persective, but what you really need to justify the article's continued existence is to build from information on development and reception. Since there now seems to be some element of potential for the article's real-world content, I'm changing to neutral. I'm not opposing to a delete because I'm not convinced by the sources produced so far that there is sufficient real-world information for the separate article, as much of the sources produced so far could be used as effectively in a cultural impact section of the series article.-- Sabre (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Toys that exist in the real world and a game played by people in the real world are "real world." The GameSpot article by itself may be insufficient, but coupled with other sources and given time can be expanded on. For an article that you agree has potential and that has been suggested elsewhere in this discussion has a redirect location, I am not opposed to a redirect without deletion so that if/when I have a chance to go through my back issues of GamePro, Electronic Gaming Monthly, etc., I do find additional sources, I am able to add them without having to start over from scratch. After all, if I was able to find the information on the toys in one day for an article that has been around for a few months, I think it reasonable that given additional time and because I have subscriptions to game publications (although it will obviously take some time to go through all the back issues, especially with my basset hound undergoing additional surgey now to have multiple tumors removed; really depressing actually as she is not doing too good at all), that I have a realistic shot at improving the article further. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have my sympathies about your dog, I can understand how that can disrupt your ability to edit here, but did you even read the guideline I linked to? Real-world information is NOT "it actually physically exists somewhere". Everything is used by people in the real world. Real world information is outlined in WP:WAF#Secondary_information and it is not simply that it is used by real people. It goes deeper than that, and merchandising (ie the toys) is part of that. But simply saying "its got real-world information because real people play it" is naive and completely irrelevant. Please, read the guideline and understand what is meant by the term "real-world information". -- Sabre (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the sympathy regarding my basset hound. She is still having issues going to the bathroom, so we'll see. I'll likely upload a picture of her most prominent scar from this latest surgery on my talk page in the near future. Anyway, I did read the guidelines and I do still believe that the articles passes it, but as you suggested above ("I can understand how that can disrupt your ability to edit here"), I am somewhat out of it for now, so I'm not sure I have much else I can add. Thank you for the spirited discussion! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said, the GameSpot article does not give the signficiant coverage to develop the proper aspects of the article: you can use it to cite who the characters are, but beyond that its useless. And you seem to confuse what is meant by real-world. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, so simply because something is used in real-world does not mean that it is notable - because that would be absolutely everything on the planet. See WP:WAF#Secondary information - real-world information on a fictional subject is not that someone who actually exists once used it somewhere, but is information on the creator, the design and the development, factors that have influenced development, popularity among the public, reception by critics and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. That is the sort of information you need to get. Toys are good from this persective, but what you really need to justify the article's continued existence is to build from information on development and reception. Since there now seems to be some element of potential for the article's real-world content, I'm changing to neutral. I'm not opposing to a delete because I'm not convinced by the sources produced so far that there is sufficient real-world information for the separate article, as much of the sources produced so far could be used as effectively in a cultural impact section of the series article.-- Sabre (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- At least one reliable, third party source has been found and we know the topic is covered in a variety of published primary sources and it is reasonable to suspect that they are likely covered in at least some published game magazines. These games are played by people in the real world and these publications are read by people in the real world. Thus the characters in Call of Duty have significance to the real world. Heck, they even made action figures of some characters from the games. So in a sense you can have play with or display some characters in the real world. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ITSCRUFT. A list of characters is not a "how to", which is what the gameguide guidelines concern, i.e. cheat codes and the like. The characters of a notable series on multiple platforms are notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
DeleteNeutral: I'm seeing potential, but I remain unconvinced.notability is not inherited, and the characters of Call of Duty are not independently notable. They can be easily covered within the main game articles in a properly constructed characters section. There is simply no need for a spinoff character article for this series. The article is also entirely unreferenced, and is likely to remain so due to a high probability of no notability. The actual extent of character interaction in the games also means that the level of content is unlikely to grow and is useless to an encyclopedia reader, it serves only fans of the game and is undue weight on the topic.-- Sabre (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)- Notability is inherited and the characters of Call of Duty are collectively notable in the capacity of a compilation article such as this one. There is a need for a spinoff character article for the series as it allows editors for an opportunity to expand on the information on these characters using various publications about these characters in a manner that would be inappropriate for the main article. Sourcing problems should be addressed via Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than outright deletion. The characters in this game are recognizable to millions of people around the world and so is of relevance to readers and editors alike. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then provide sources that show that they are recognisable to millions of people around the world, because I seriously doubt that. The burden of proof for notability is on the editors of the article, and unverified statements that basically go along the lines of "its notable because I think it is" are not valid arguments. Wikipedia:Verifiability sums it up nicely: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Prove their notability with information reception and development using reliable, third-party party sources (not fansites) and I'll gladly change my view to a keep as it would then be a surmountable problem. In the likely event that there aren't the information can be easily covered within the respective game articles - Call of Duty 4 already does a reasonable job of this. If/before you reply to this, search for sources that prove notability for the characters of Call of Duty. Don't reply by simply stating what you personally believe is the case, as without sources to justify your argument it is not valid. And linking to a post by another editor for an old AfD on a real-world subject (not a fictional one like this) on which the article no longer exists is not a good way to try to back up your point. That is, after all, only the opinion of one editor, and you've taken it out of context. -- Sabre (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you search the books found here, you should find sufficient references to improve the article and given time, I would reckon going through the old issues of various video game magazines would turn up additional and absolutely third-party sources. Thus, I think a case could be made for Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Reliable websites do seem to cover these sorts of articles, i.e. such as here if we want to have an article on the characters for the whole series, then we could use reliable sources like the aforelinked one for say the second game in the series. Combined with strategy guides as primary evidence and magazines, I think we have something to go with. If you think that the characters can indeed be sufficiently covered in the articles then I don't see any gain by outright deleting the article. It was obviously created in good faith and so is a legitimate search term, thus wouldn't a redirect be more logical? Finally, there is a genuine interest in this article by our readers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then provide sources that show that they are recognisable to millions of people around the world, because I seriously doubt that. The burden of proof for notability is on the editors of the article, and unverified statements that basically go along the lines of "its notable because I think it is" are not valid arguments. Wikipedia:Verifiability sums it up nicely: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Prove their notability with information reception and development using reliable, third-party party sources (not fansites) and I'll gladly change my view to a keep as it would then be a surmountable problem. In the likely event that there aren't the information can be easily covered within the respective game articles - Call of Duty 4 already does a reasonable job of this. If/before you reply to this, search for sources that prove notability for the characters of Call of Duty. Don't reply by simply stating what you personally believe is the case, as without sources to justify your argument it is not valid. And linking to a post by another editor for an old AfD on a real-world subject (not a fictional one like this) on which the article no longer exists is not a good way to try to back up your point. That is, after all, only the opinion of one editor, and you've taken it out of context. -- Sabre (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, you've got a start with the GameSpot article, but you can't base it all on one source, and it doesn't really give much detail on the real-world elements of the characters - it just says who they are. The strategy guides aren't third-party and are arguably self-published, so they can't be used to establish notability. And article viewing statistics are absolutely irrelevant - it doesn't matter how many people look at an article if the article is below acceptable standards. You'll need to produce a few more sources - completely independent of the game - to convince me. How were characters received critically (try reviews, but you're looking for significant coverage of the story and characters, not just a few sentences)? What factors influenced development of the characters (it seems to be generally accepted you can use primary sources like development commentary for this if you have sufficient third-party sources)? It needs multiple sources to justify a separate article, otherwise the coverage of the subject is not proportional to its notability. Take a look at the featured and good character articles other at WP:VG, they provide perfect examples for what sort of sources you're after. In relation to redirecting, a redirect still produces the same result (ie more appropriate and relevant coverage in respective game articles), and should probably aimed at the Call of Duty series article. -- Sabre (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- As you can see below, I have also found some coverage on a series of toys they made based on the characters that have some notoriety due to including a controvsersial SS officer action figure in the series. So, a combination of the GameSpot article, the sources on the action figures, and strategy guides that discuss the characters provides a balance of primary and secondary sources and per our policies and guidelines, primary sources are okay when they are not the only sources used in the article and they won't be at this point. If I get a chance to visit my brother this weekend who has (or at least had last time I was there) the Call of Duty 4 XBox 360 game and guide, I can see if that can be used in some context. But I don't see even in a worst case scenario as you note above if there is a redirect location why we couldn't do that without having to delete the article and along with it editors' contribution histories. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is inherited and the characters of Call of Duty are collectively notable in the capacity of a compilation article such as this one. There is a need for a spinoff character article for the series as it allows editors for an opportunity to expand on the information on these characters using various publications about these characters in a manner that would be inappropriate for the main article. Sourcing problems should be addressed via Wikipedia:SOFIXIT rather than outright deletion. The characters in this game are recognizable to millions of people around the world and so is of relevance to readers and editors alike. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge Possibly merge the article with Call of Duty (series). Information in this article is very useful and important to the series. Gary King (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete or mergeComment: In the article's current state it has done little to assert notability. Even though the characters are from highly notable games, notability is not inherited. And while there are several successful examples of character lists, they are successful because they were able to assert notability with multiple third party reliable sources. There is some useful information in here, but that information would probably be best in the series article or in the separate game articles. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC))- These are characters from a notable series of games covered in at least third-party source, multiple strategy guides, and thave have been even made into toys. Plus, notability is inherited. All of the concerns are of a Wikipedia:SOFIXIT nature. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- While notability may be inherited in the media, it is not inherited on Wikipedia. Notability will need to be established for it to stay. Game guides are weak sources to base notability on, but third party sources about the characters and related merchandise are certainly acceptable. I'm willing to see if the article can be cleaned up, and will hold off support keep or delete for while. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- The toys have been covered: [1], [2], [3], etc.. They apparently planned on making a Nazi action figure as well, but cancelled it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- While notability may be inherited in the media, it is not inherited on Wikipedia. Notability will need to be established for it to stay. Game guides are weak sources to base notability on, but third party sources about the characters and related merchandise are certainly acceptable. I'm willing to see if the article can be cleaned up, and will hold off support keep or delete for while. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- These are characters from a notable series of games covered in at least third-party source, multiple strategy guides, and thave have been even made into toys. Plus, notability is inherited. All of the concerns are of a Wikipedia:SOFIXIT nature. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, please stop asserting that notability is inherited. It's not, and your only source for it is a single person's assertion at another AFD. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I am more than willing to do so if others are also willing to not just keep repeating it over and over again when the arguments to avoid essay also advises against saying it isn't inherited either. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The argument to avoid essays is a bit pointless given the subject matter. Essays are not an assertion of policy, but an explanation of a reason or thought. The fact others are stating "notability is not inherited" is probably because Le Grand keeps saying "it is inherited", which other people in turn are responding back with "notability is not inherited". It's a silly vicious cycle. It is apparent Le Grand understands the need to assert notability and is working to find and add in sources. It's probably best to revisit this AfD in a day or two to see how much progress is made rather than needlessly take time from both sides. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- Yes, I am only saying it multiple times in response to when I see others repeatedly saying the opposite of it. You are right, it is indeed an unnecessary "cycle." And I think your observation is fair and reasonable. I suppose I just am frustrated in AfDs when I am making an effort to improve an article and others don't help. Any time spent here having to defend the article I am working to improve is time not being spent finding sources and adding text; however, I think it rude and disrespectful not to respond in a discussion to any posts made after my last post or to one of my posts, so I feel obliged to continue commenting here. Anyway, I have begun working on a section of the article that will address the action figures based on game characters. Please see Characters in Call of Duty#Action figures. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The argument to avoid essays is a bit pointless given the subject matter. Essays are not an assertion of policy, but an explanation of a reason or thought. The fact others are stating "notability is not inherited" is probably because Le Grand keeps saying "it is inherited", which other people in turn are responding back with "notability is not inherited". It's a silly vicious cycle. It is apparent Le Grand understands the need to assert notability and is working to find and add in sources. It's probably best to revisit this AfD in a day or two to see how much progress is made rather than needlessly take time from both sides. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC))
- I am more than willing to do so if others are also willing to not just keep repeating it over and over again when the arguments to avoid essay also advises against saying it isn't inherited either. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not required for people to just drop what they are doing (or working on) or whatever, just to improve an article in deletion. You don't need to criticize others just because they don't want to improve the same articles you want to. I don't think it's rude to not reply to every comment in AFDs. Not everyone has the time to go back to where they posted, and reply each and every time. Assume some good faith, instead of thinking people are bad because of minor things. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The point of the policy is to avoid one argument from two sides: that notability should be judged by the parent article. The point is you've yet to establish the notability of this article. If you spent more time establishing its independent notability, you might have a legitimate shot at convincing others to keep this article. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- not really--its a split off subarticle--by whatever name we may be calling them this week--For a sufficiently notable work, the merit in having a separate article for t he characters is an purely editorial convention. It's the coverage of the subject as a whole which needs to be judged,not whether each individual section can or cannot stand on its own as if there were no main article at all. DGG (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it's not a game guide and the Call of Duty series is a notable videogame series. If there's speculation, remove it. And the games themselves are acceptable primary sources. And I see no evidence of a POV fork. So what's the problem? The article could also possibly be merged with Call of Duty (series). --Pixelface (talk) 10:43, 27 April 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.
