Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter (Resident Evil)

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. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter (Resident Evil)

Hunter (Resident Evil) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:FICT. RMHED (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it is a character from a notable game series played by millions of people internationally. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, the point of the nomination is to assert WITH REFERENCES that this topic is notable, simply saying it is wont do. After all, Notability isn't inherited, so just because Resident Evil and the games are notable doesn't mean every monster in it deserves its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Something that millions of people in multiple countries are familiar with is inherently notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as inherited notability, all articles must assert individual notability. Just because Superman likes his new wallpaper, doesn't mean we can create Wallpaper(Superman) based off of his popularity. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would agree on not needing an article on Superman's wallpaper, but a character is not wallpaper. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but just like his wallpaper, this article needs to assert its notability to have an article on wikipedia and not, say, a fan wiki. We either need to show that it has creator commentary, design sketches, development information and that kind of stuff, or it shouldn't have its own artciel. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But the articles does assert notability: "As a result, the Hunters have become one of the best-known creatures in the series." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

But you will notice there are no references to that, or for anything else in the article for that matter. It comes down to having references or not; if there are, great, if not, delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that references should always be added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are no references in the link you posted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are. They even made a toy of the character. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That is it? That wont sustain a whole article, that would probably fit as a part of a popular culture section for the main Futurama article. If we find a lot more, thats what we call notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would a character from Resident Evil be in a Futurama article? --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• If if can't meet WP:FICT it's got no place here. Just because millions may be familiar with it, doesn't make it notable. Most people are familiar with scratching their arse, is that notable? RMHED (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to make a computer game out of it and sell a few million copies, and get it reviewed--which tends to go together--then yes it would be notable. I am not sure whether all this is a necessary part of the world, but it is part, and we should cover it, it as much detail as the material will support. DGG (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it would not. Tell any extra in a movie with thousands of extras, being an extra in that movie, no matter how famous, doesn't make you famous or notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lots of interesting information here, but it would probably be better on a separate Resident Evil Wiki. I have to say delete. Chri$topher
• Keep If its admitted to be interesting, and verifiable, and relevant to an important topic, its an appropriate article. V is a core principle, but the manner of V is secondary and just a flexible guideline. We are not making an encyclopedia to illustration the current state of N:Fiction, but making guidelines suitable for building an encyclopedia. the guideline can be what they need to be to acheive our purposes. DGG (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If "V" is a core principle, then this article fails miserably, since it has not one reference, and there isn't even a reference section. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Resident Evil creatures where all of the other resident evil monsters are. We can also merge to List of Resident Evil 4 creatures; Characters in Resident Evil 2; Characters in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis; Characters in Resident Evil Code: Veronica; Characters in Resident Evil 4; and Characters in Resident Evil Outbreak, but I recommend the first option.--CastAStone|^(talk) 18:25, 6 December 2007 (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.