Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geography in the Suikoden series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Geography in the Suikoden series

Geography in the Suikoden series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails to meet the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, since there are no reliable sources that can assert the notability of this article that are independent of the subject itself. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the sort of combination article that should be encouraged. The individual things treated there are not appropriate for full articles, and this is a reasonable place to put them. In practice this is an arrangement of material, not really viewed separately. I find it really ironic that given all the debating on fiction, there isnt yet complete acceptance of the middle way of handling things. DGG (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no non-trivial coverage reliable verifiable secondary sources present to establish notability. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. We don't need a whole article on a list of game locations that the reader doesn't need to know to understand the game. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/Cleanup with a preference to merge/redirect (to Suikoden) if immediatism prevails and this article is found wanting. No, this article isn't close to what it should eventually be, as it's entirely too list heavy at the moment without enough real world context. But just because real world context is annoying to get at requiring Japanese translation doesn't mean it doesn't exist; it'll just be slow going. This is a single article for the setting of an ~8 game or so series with various spinoffs that viable development information has already been found in some other articles; it can be given time. SnowFire (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If the game is notable, then keep; if the game is not notable, then delete. (By the way, Second Life does not seem to have its own geography article, and Second Life is notable.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the game and series are notable. See Suikoden (video game) and Suikoden. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The game is notable, but its geography is not. Notability is measured against the general notability guideline which requires coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Against this standard, the article fails. (If other articles fail too, that's irrelevant right now. Articles will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.) Randomran (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hence I made a neutral comment, which does not state a position for delete or keep - informing an editor that the series and game are in fact notable. (Quick edit: It appears I put my comment under the wrong person, which may have prompted your response, I'm moving to the right location) AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem. My comment wasn't directed at you per se, but at the main comment: that it doesn't entirely matter if the game itself is notable. Randomran (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - does not follow the WP:Writing about fiction guidelines, or WP:Notability guidelines, and I don't see how the article could be altered to adhere to them. Interested contributors may wish to transwiki to a gaming-specific encyclopedia. Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. It could be altered to something closer to Ivalice or World of Final Fantasy VIII, which are both good articles. It will undoubtedly take time and research, but Wikipedia is not on a deadline.
Note to closer: If some measure of good faith is being looked for, I think a rename to "World of Suikoden" and possibly some additional merging / reworking could certainly be done to improve the article, and I'd be willing to give that a shot. SnowFire (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. My faculties and schedule being what they are at the moment, I am forced to just add a warm body for this side and note my support for DGG. This is an arrangement of material, a valuable and often vital feature that tends to go unnoticed in favor of acronyms with WP: in front of them when matters are being wrangled. A further thank-you to SnowFire. Great big articulate argument coming when cited limitations permit. --Kizor 21:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as I would have to think that these books can be used to better reference the article and serve as reliable sources. Plus, clear reader/editor interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per LGRC. This should be doable as a topic. Mangojuicetalk 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No notability asserted through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliable sources can be provided. This is entirely OR, or based on non-reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 23:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability, no demonstration of RS. Eusebeus (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kizor. This has merit. User:Krator (t c) 10:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. This is the right thing to have here. No objection to a rename to "world of...." Hobit (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)