Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthopox 13 (Destroy All Humans!)

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. This one is subjective - I think it could exist quite comfortably on Wikipedia within the core policies, but I also think that the deletionist arguments are making quite legitimate interpretations of these policies, so I defer to the weight of consensus. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orthopox 13 (Destroy All Humans!)

Orthopox 13 (Destroy All Humans!) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of plot elements from the Destroy All Humans game articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This article contains some information not featured in the game articles. SWJS (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If its important enough, it should be in those articles. This character needs to establish WP:N Notability through WP:RS Reliable Sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is important enough it can be in its own separate article just as Battle of Arbela will expand on information not covered in Alexander the Great. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources, even one, are required from the start, and if there are none, there is no "chance". Also, giving an article a chance implies it has notability, which this article has not proven. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me sir. I am a direct and dedicated fan to this series. If you would please remove the deletion templates, I will try and aquire the reliable sources. --SWJS (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't know where you got the idea that "reliable sources are required (to even get a chance)", but if you could point out that policy or guideline to me I'd appreciate it. The claim that the article subject is non-notable may well be valid, but I take exception to your other claim. You may reply on my talk page if you like. Gigs (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. More hits on Google than I was expecting, but I did not find anything to establish notability. First five pages contain passing mention on video game sites and guides, posts on unreliable forums, fanfic, some blogs and myspace junk, etc. It doesn't appear to me that this character specifically has ever received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Secondly, the article consists only of a paragraph of plot summary and then a list of the character's exploits in the fictional universe; there is no real-world context in the form of critical analysis, development, or impact. Lacking both established notability and encyclopedic content, the proper course of action is deletion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doctorfluffy: inherent WP:V and WP:PLOT problems. Also, I tried some additional searches more likely to find WP:RS than plain Google. There's nothing in Books or Scholar. and only two apparently brief mentions in News. Jakew (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, we've established that the subject exists and is from a notable franchise, but the sources for it would be published game magazines, not necessarily online sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The existence of the subject is not relevant to notability. My right knee exists, but we don't (and shouldn't) have an article about it. Nor, for that matter, is the notability of the logical "parent" subject relevant: notability is not inherited from one article to another, which makes perfect sense when you think of "notability" as "could an article about this subject ever meet WP:V?". The pressing question is one of plausible sourcing, and while it's possible that print publications may exist, one has to ask how likely that may be. If it proves to be so difficult to identify sources that we're reduced to speculating about print sources that might exist, then it's probably safe to say that the subject is not notable. Jakew (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Apples and oranges. Your or my right knee is not comparable to something familiar to millions of video game players and that very well could meet notability as it is indeed likely to be referenced in game guides, video game magazines, et al, as this is a current series and as many such publications and TV shows even feature segments specifically on characters. It is safe to say that sources likely exist and that not only does this subhec inherit notability from the franchise, but is indeed notable per our standards. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Judge & Jake. There is no credible assertion of notability that can be established with reference to reliable sources. Eusebeus (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this article per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, and Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. The article concerns a main character in a recognizable series and includes some out of universe information. This article may also be useful for people who are confused about the characters. --SWJS (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect or delete. It is doubtful at the moment that this article can ever be improved to a reasonable standard, and what can potentially be added later should be mentioned in the main article first before a new article on individual characters gets created. – sgeureka t•c 11:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep — The subject of the article clearly exists as part of a bona fide fictional universe. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable cruft. Biruitorul Talk 06:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Neither of which are valid reasons for deletion per WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, how about this: unreferenced, in-universe, no assertion of notability, no third-party coverage, and, if we're going to cite essays, WP:STUPID. And, yes, it's not notable (has an assertion to the contrary been made?) and it is most assuredly cruft. Biruitorul Talk 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • As others said, "cruft" is never helpful for these discusions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, "what others said" isn't necessarily that important, unless it's a guideline or official policy. But again: unreferenced, in-universe, no assertion of notability, no third-party coverage - that seems enough reason to torch this. Biruitorul Talk 15:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
            • But there's no real reason for actual deletion as even in an extreme worst case scenario it could be redirected to Destroy All Humans, especially as it can be referened, does have an assertion of notability, and is covered in third party sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No assertion of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no notability asserted through non-trivial coverage in reliable verifiable secondary sources. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 16:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article asserts notability through non-trivial coverage in reliable and verifiable secondary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Not quite. First, that's a source, not "sources". Second, it falls short of non-trivial. This is the full extent of what it says about the subject of the article: "You play as Cryptosporidium, who serves as the right hand of the supreme alien leader Orthopox." And that's it. Jakew (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Per Jakew, there's a disparity between trivial and non-trivial coverage. The subject of the article receives a mere mention in that article that offers no critical reception or review, which is what is necessary for articles to assert notability. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
      • A main character of a mainstream franchise is notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Not necessarily. Simply because a character is featured in a franchise does not automatically convey notability. Per above, if there is no non-trivial coverage, then it should not have an article; it is not exempt from our notability guidelines. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • In instances when the subject is potentially notable and where there are temporary valid redirect locations, we do not outright delete the article in question. This article has a realistic chance of sources turning up and in the meantime in a worst case scenario could be redirected to the game series article so that as sources turn up the edit history remains in tact and editors do not have to start over from scratch. There's no reason for an outright deletion in this case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
            • The available evidence is that the subject isn't notable, and that therefore the content is original research from primary sources. It is therefore dubious that the existing article would be of use in the (perhaps unlikely) event that reliable secondary sources were identified. The only purpose of a redirect, then, would be in the very unlikely situation that someone searched for "Orthopox 13 (Destroy All Humans!)". Let's be realistic here: the chances of that occurring are slim to nonexistent. Deletion is, therefore, the obvious choice. Jakew (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I must diagree because someone may likely search for simply "Pox" or "Orthopox 13", and then they may be redirected to the article in question. I myself believe that the game articles don't supply enough understandable information on these characters, therefore, these pages are a great asset to Wikipedia. I rest my case gentlemen. --SWJS (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
                • If someone searches for "orthopox 13", they can find six other articles about the series quite easily. If someone searches for "pox" they'll find pox. These concerns appear to be unwarranted. As for the game articles not supplying enough information, that may simply reflect the lack of available sources. Jakew (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • On the contrary, there are thousands of reliable sources. I spent most of last night adding some to the article. I don't see why all of you insist on having the article removed. We've added valuable resourses, gave good explanations for defending it, and so forth. If you continue to insist on it being deleted after standards are met, then it would be considered Vandalism. Am I correct? --SWJS (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • With all due respect to your efforts, but there is still not a single source for non-trivial real-world information (e.g. design, development, reception and cultural impact) so that the article would pass WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. – sgeureka t•c 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is no reason for the disamb part of this article name (there's nothing at Orthopox 13) - my guess is that the editor that created this one also created the Crypto one which did require the disambig. If this article is kept, it should be moved to Orthopox 13, and if merged, moved to Orthopox 13 and changed to a redirect to the series (Redirects are cheap as long as its a reasonable search term). --MASEM 13:27, 26 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.