Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gina Cross

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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gina Cross

Gina Cross (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article was up for prod but the prod was removed by an anonymous IP without explanation. This article fails WP:FICT by having no assertion of real-world notability, in fact the only references given for the article are the video games the character appears in and a game manual. This article is just plot info for fans of the game and not encyclopedic. -- Atamachat 18:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete As noted in the nomination, fails to assert notability or establish real-world significance per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Is it an acceptable spinout article however? I can't even tell from this article what makes Gina Cross notable within the Half-Life games, she seems to be a very minor character. Is it acceptable for an article to be nothing but a rehash of the minor events a character participated in, in the storyline of a video game? I'm curious as to how you justify this using those Wikilinks you provided. -- Atamachat 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment the spinout section of WP:FICT is still disputed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why would it matter? WP:FICT is the relevant notability guideline. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I have. The spinout section contradicts other guidelines and policies, and does not have consensus support. WP:N and WP:DEL#REASON do. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Pixelface, per that link you provided, this article still should not be kept. As I stated before this character does not even appear notable within the original work, also, "Editors should strive to establish notability by providing as much real-world content as possible for these spinout articles." There is none. As the guideline states this character would be better located in a List of Half-Life Characters or other such article. You haven't answered any of the questions about what makes this article viable, just links to guidelines which reinforce why this article should be deleted. -- Atamachat 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SPINOUT says "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article." WP:SUMMARY says "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place." WP:Article series says "As young articles grow in length, they should initially be divided into sections. As the article continues to grow, it can eventually be broken up into a series of articles (called "sub-articles"), each with a short, useful title, focusing on specific areas of the topic." WP:FICT says "If a main article is concise but still becomes too long, then it may be appropriate to remove details by creating succinct spinout articles." And I disagree that the character was not noable within the original work. The character appears in two games: as the holographic guide in Half-Life and as the partner of the main character in Half-Life: Decay. You said yourself that the character would be better located in a list of Half-Life characters. That means a merge, not deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Better a merge than to leave this article as-is, but better yet to just delete this article entirely. And I know the purpose of WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOUT but as I quoted, real-world context is still called for even in those guidelines. -- Atamachat 15:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Half-Life universe characters. Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no secondary coverage, fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • How does it "fail" WP:N? --Pixelface (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It fails to provide evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so it does not meet the notability guideline WP:N. Per WP:DEL#REASON, it should therefore be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That doesn't' mean it's not notable. WP:N doesn't say lack of significant coverage = NN. --Pixelface (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
          • True - if only you could explain that distinction on the WP:FICT talk page I think the disputes there might be shorter. Nonetheless, the article doesn't contain any assertion of notability whatsoever. WP:N provides a way to demonstrate notability, and the article fails to do so; it's non-notable. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
            • You seem to think there's only one way of suggesting notability. Even if it's decided that this character is not notable, it can still be merged into another article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
              • On the contrary, there are many ways of demonstrating notability. This article doesn't do so under any of them. So; it should be deleted or merged. Because it contains no sourced information from a real-world perspective, a merge is inappropriate; it would constitute excess detail in a main article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Why do you say a merge would constitute excess detail? When performing a merge, not all information has to be merged. --Pixelface (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment In the interest of hopefully coming to a consensus in this AfD I'm going to try to summarize some suggestions put forth so far both pro and con to try to bring some clarity regarding what is being argued here. The reasons for wanting this article deleted per my arguments and others are that this article provides no real-world context, no third-party reliable sources, and therefore lacks notability. The reasons for wanting this article kept as far as I can tell is that spinoff articles from notable fictional articles inherit notability and exist to allow detail to be given to a portion of that fiction without making the parent article too large (in this case, Gina Cross being a character from the Half-Life series of games). One rebuttal to that argument is that the guideline regarding fictional spinoffs is controversial, another is that even accepting what that guideline suggests, this article still should have some real-world context and fails to establish that it is notable within Half-Life itself let alone the real world. -- Atamachat 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Minor component of fictional work, per WP:FICT. Not notable enough for a standalone article. --John Nagle (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:GlassCobra/Hotties are always notable. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you think she is a hottie, I question your judgement. :) Ursasapien (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Minor component of fictional work; totally fails notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Seems to be a major aspect of a notable work and with references, seems to pass notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • reply - What "references"? What are you talking about? The only "references" for the article are the video games the character appears in and a game manual. As noted in the nomination, this fails to assert notability or establish real-world significance per WP:FICT. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • She has notability to peole in the real world and video games, game manuals, etc. are fine as reliable sources. Encyclopedias use both primary and secondary sources. She does have some google hits, but I wouldn't be surprised if she isn't also covered in various game magazines. If nothing else, the term is obviously a legitimate search term, which means that as a worst case scenario we would merge the content to a Half Life article and then redirect without deletion per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:27, 14 March 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.