Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal.

Contents

[edit] 7 (RPG characters)

any article that states that it describes a character (but not a race, or type of creature) from any roleplaying game (including MUDs and MMORPGs), that is not also a real or fictional person outside that roleplaying game should be added to the criteria for speedy deletion.
  • Perhaps surprisingly, people frequently write characters about their character from Everquest or Dungeons & Dragons. Whenever found on VFD, these articles get unanimous votes to delete, possibly excepting a vote by the article's creator.
  • Quite simply, no matter how high-level, how powerful or how well-equipped, a character from a roleplaying game is not encyclopedic.
  • Characters from popular fiction, such as Elminster or Pug, are covered by the exception since they appear in written books. This also serves to exclude people who use Buffy or any existing person as their role-playing alter-ego.
  • If you are unsure about this proposal, consider that there is a proposed test run to try it out for a month.

vote – discuss

[edit] Votes

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on July 19, 2005 15:11 (UTC).

[edit] Support

  1. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 15:51 (UTC)
  2. pretty obvious IMO. DES 4 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
  3. Ditto. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)
  4. Leave a note that only admins familiar with the claimed fictional setting should perform the speedy. humblefool® 4 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)
  5. --Henrygb 4 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)
  6. nixie 4 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
  7. A good start to getting some of that fancruft off of the site... support. --Idont Havaname 5 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)
    It would also get some of the featured articles off of the site. Factitious 03:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  8. NatusRoma 5 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)
  9. An easy Google search will establish whether the person also exists outside the game, and the article has to state that it is a character or it must go to VfD. If they 'forget' to state that, they get to have their day in VfD. -Splash 5 July 2005 01:02 (UTC)
    The article also has to state that it is not a real or fictional thing outside of the game, correct? Factitious July 6, 2005 01:57 (UTC)
  10. Support - certainly, at least, to the extent that we have articles which state that "Darth Foo" is Chuck Foo's character that he plays in his MMPORG. -- BD2412 talk July 5, 2005 02:08 (UTC)
  11. VfD will still be needed to sort out some of these, but at least we have a tool to deal with the worst offenders. Denni☯ 2005 July 5 02:36 (UTC)
  12. mikka (t) 5 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)
    — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
  13. gadfium 5 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)
  14. Fuzheado | Talk 5 July 2005 03:48 (UTC)
  15. Cryptic (talk) 5 July 2005 04:08 (UTC)
  16. Harro5 July 5, 2005 05:49 (UTC)
  17. Support. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
  18. G Rutter 5 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
  19. JoJan 5 July 2005 08:59 (UTC)
  20. If it is not obvious from the article that the topic has wider significance then it is worse than a stub because it is misleading. — Theo (Talk) 5 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)
  21. Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 5 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)
  22. Support. --Scimitar 5 July 2005 23:28 (UTC)
  23. Support. Extremely crufty. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
  24. support. and obvious CSD. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions July 6, 2005 04:33 (UTC)
  25. Support. -R. S. Shaw 6 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
  26. Support. I imagine they mostly get speedied as nonsense anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 6 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
  27. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 10:47 (UTC)
  28. --Porturology 6 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
  29. ➥the Epopt 6 July 2005 13:42 (UTC)
  30. --Aphaea* 6 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)
  31. Yup. Thanks,
    Luc "Somethingorother" French 6 July 2005 20:29 (UTC)
  32. Carnildo 6 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
  33. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 7 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
  34. Support. ral315 July 7, 2005 05:28 (UTC)
  35. -- Ricky81682 (talk) July 7, 2005 08:20 (UTC)
  36. Zandor, from the village in the west, supports this proposal, for a bag of rubies. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 16:35 (UTC)
  37. Strong Support —thames 7 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  38. weak support drini ☎ 7 July 2005 20:57 (UTC)
  39. Support - Tεxτurε 7 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)
    • Weak support. This is a very specialized set of useless articles and I doubt many admins are going to have this criteria in mind when doing new article patrol, but I don't believe it's dangerous. David | Talk 7 July 2005 22:32 (UTC) vote changed - see below. David | Talk 14:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  40. Support, RPG characters are vanity and fan-fiction. Gazpacho 8 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
  41. Support. A no brainer. Kaibabsquirrel 8 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
  42. Merovingian (t) (c) July 8, 2005 09:19 (UTC)
  43. Support, fancruft must die Proto t c 8 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)
  44. Support. Drizzt is encyclopedic, my own DnD character is not, and wouldn't be even if I played well. July 9, 2005 04:37 (UTC)
    Is Link (Legend of Zelda) encyclopedic, in your opinion? Factitious 03:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    Yes he is Link is the protagonist of a Nintendo games series. - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Support Gwk 9 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
  46. Support. TheCoffee 21:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  47. Support. Delete first, ask questions later. Peter Isotalo 17:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support. Certainly. --Canderson7 18:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  49. Support. --Allen3 talk 21:50, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  50. --nyenyec ☎ 00:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  51. Support Fifelfoo 03:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  52. Support – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  53. Support When making a vote on these amendments, I consider the following: do these already address current VfDs, and as CSD will more articles be deleted or reverted back to VfD? These really should be our only criteria for support. P7 meets both a current VfD issue, and the majority of CSDs using P7 will continue to be deleted.Inigmatus 17:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  54. Support. Pavel Vozenilek 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  55. Support Inigmatus seems to make some valid points. Vegaswikian 05:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  56. Support. EvilPhoenix talk 01:26, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  57. There's always WP:VfU for the inevitable errors that will creep in. We need something to increase the throughput of VfD; better to fix a few errors in a quick system than use a slow, expensive (in time/energy) system. Noel (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  58. Support. Most of these already get speedied through rulebending. Casito⇝Talk 02:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Too ambiguous. Modron (Dungeons & Dragons) could be considered eligible by editors unfamiliar with RPGs, as they appear to be characters from a roleplaying game, that are not also real or fictional people outside that roleplaying game. Pburka 4 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)
    • They clearly come under the "Race or type of creature" exception. DES 4 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)
      • That was added after I voted. I will abstain for now until I do a bit of research to find out how often this could be applied. Pburka 4 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
  2. I object primarily because the wording of this item was added by User:Radiant! without discussion prior to this vote being opened. -- Netoholic @ 4 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
  3. a character (but not a race, or type of creature) [...] that is not also a real or fictional person outside that roleplaying game — As with proposal 6, proving a negative is too large a task for just 2 editors to perform. Uncle G 4 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)
    • While I agree with Uncle G's remark on proposal six, I don't think it applies here. It is obvious from an RPG article whether it concerns a character (e.g. Raistlin, Cyric) or a type of creature (e.g. Beholder, Drow). Also note that many of the latter are also part of existing mythologies. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 08:43 (UTC)
      • ...but it is not obvious whether a character, race, or type of creature is "not also a real or fictional person outside that roleplaying game". Uncle G 5 July 2005 10:11 (UTC)
  4. As with Proposal 6. Uncle G is right on the money there and here. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 5 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)
  5. Per Uncle G. Xoloz 5 July 2005 06:44 (UTC)
  6. These are merge candidates, probably wouldn't even pass in VfD. See also Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Z --Tony Sidaway|Talk 5 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
  7. Merge/VfD these — Bcat (talk | email) 5 July 2005 15:49 (UTC)
  8. As per Uncle G. Consider Drizzt (sp?). Meelar (talk) July 5, 2005 16:49 (UTC)
    • Drizzt is a character from several novels, as plainly stated in the article. Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 21:12 (UTC)
  9. Objecting on the grounds that this is absurdly specific. These are hardly ever on VfD and the idea of specifically having this as a clause for speedy deletion is bureaucracy and instruction creep gone mad. Maybe this should be an example in a well-worded "unverifiable trash" clause, but in reality this sort of thing often requires speedy action (where action includes merge and redirection as well as deletion) rather just speedy delete. Pcb21| Pete 5 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
  10. Poor wording. Something notable could fall through the cracks on this one. Acegikmo1 5 July 2005 19:20 (UTC)
    • Please provide an example? Radiant_>|< July 5, 2005 21:12 (UTC)
  11. VFD, not CSD - David Gerard 5 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Overly complicated rules which involve proving negatives don't belong on CSD. Factitious July 6, 2005 00:09 (UTC)
  13. --Mononoke 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Some pages like these really shouldn't come up for any sort of deletion, they should be merged/redirected. Christopher Parham (talk) 2005 July 6 05:02 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Uncle G, plus attempts to add a bizarre level of instruction creep to establish specific 'Speedy' criteria for something that comes along so infrequently. Unfocused 6 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)
  16. Oppose These are already pretty obvious CSDs. Stewart Adcock 6 July 2005 08:43 (UTC)
    • Under what criterion? "Common sense" is not a speedy criterion. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Uncle G, and because this is getting too specific. Sietse 6 July 2005 10:42 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, instruction creep unnecessary given rarity. James F. (talk) 6 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Instruction creep. and I agree with Mel Etitis that most of this stuff gets deleted as nonsense, and therefore this proposal isn't necessary. --Deathphoenix 6 July 2005 14:59 (UTC) Whether such articles are on literary characters or RPG characters is beyond the scope of a speed-deleting admin. It takes a VfD to determine that. --Deathphoenix 7 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
    • Except that Wikipedia:patent nonsense is defined as being completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent: things like "gdfgfdl" or "mind hell loves chunky frog". Articles on RPG player characters are usually understandable (or else they wouldn't be identified as such). So, while these do get speedied as nonsense, it's actually against the rules to do so. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
      • Good point. Once we get beyond that, however, it takes a VfD to determine whether a character is from an RPG or not. I've changed the comments in my vote to reflect that. --Deathphoenix 7 July 2005 18:43 (UTC)
        • Not necessarily; see Cachero—that article states right out that it's somebody's character. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
  20. Complication. --ArmadniGeneral 6 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. This is redundant with the vanity policy. --FOo 6 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
    • Vanity is not a speedy criterion. — Gwalla | Talk 6 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
  22. terrible wording! No idea what would or would not qualify. Kaldari 6 July 2005 20:19 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. As written, it seems to me that an argument could be made that it applies to the recently Featured Article, Link (Legend of Zelda), as many people referr to the Zelda series as being a roleplaying game (though debated). Fieari July 6, 2005 21:45 (UTC)
  24. Oppose I don't see why a special exemption should be made for fictional characters from novels over fictional characters from RPGs. Axon 7 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)
    • Because role playing runs are ephemeral, and published novels are not. — Gwalla | Talk 7 July 2005 19:14 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Arbitrary and bizarre discrimination. Nohat 7 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, this seems as arbitrary as to say that you can't have articles on individual movie or tv show characters. Wouldn't this involve the speedy deletion of all articles under Category:Final Fantasy characters? Boo. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 7, 2005 17:10 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. Why RPGs are singled out here? This should go through normal VfD. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ July 8, 2005 09:17 (UTC)
  28. 24 at 9 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)
  29. Oppose as phrased. The proponents clearly intend that Drizzt Do'Urden and other published NPC's should not come under this rule; but that's not what it says. Septentrionalis 21:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. There are too many well written examples presently existing in Wikipedia to say these are all unambiguous deletes. For example Nooj or any of the other characters from the Category:Final Fantasy characters series. Link (Legend of Zelda) as above and others. As a CSD criterion this is too broad and covers too many article that survive VFD or have never been challenged as being a problem. Dragons flight 00:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  31. Strongly Oppose - Link (Legend of Zelda), a featured article would fall under this category. All of the characters in the final fantasy series would classify under this too, but why stop there. Why not delete articles for stuff like Mario. I say nay to this proposel. --ZeWrestler 01:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  32. Oppose I gather this was created for the right reasons (anti-vanity), but the terminology is such that it's practically begging to be abused. Fancruft should be fought, but that's what VfD is for. As others have said, as phrased this is extremely biased, and effectively puts a lot of articles (particularly relating to console role-playing game NPCs) up for the chopping block. – Seancdaug 01:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  33. Oppose - I completely understand an article should not exist if it does not hold its weight, however, a lot of articles are going to be axed which are quite extensive in nature and hold their own purpose. I'm against this one — Cuahl 02:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  34. Oppose - I agree with ZeWrestler: see how the Nintendo community feels when you delete articles on Link and Mario for appearing the Legend of Zelda or Mario RPG. ~ Hibana
  35. Oppose. Speedies should be unambiguous, so that no one could dispute them. Let a young admin speedy things just because he/she's never heard of them and they don't assert their "notability" to his/her satisfaction and we'll impoverish WP. Grace Note 02:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. A lot of good articles, like the aforementioned Link (Legend of Zelda) page and others, would be lost. No need for deletion. Thunderbrand 03:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. I'd never visit Wikipedia if this were passed. Let's focus on quality. Some random character and Link would both fall under this. All in all, you're putting an entire groups of articles in this, both good and bad, and not focusing on if the article is good or not. -- A Link to the Past 03:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. - Too many outstanding articles would be lost. Its one thing for someone to write a page about their individual EQ character, but plot-important, significant NPC type characters/creatures should be kept by all means. This is much too harsh. --Naha|(talk) 03:45, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. Most everything that should be said has already been said. While, yes, a person's online character persona is probably not deserving of its only article, many RPG characters (need I mention Link again?) have had a huge effect in the video game community, as well as popular culture in general. So many great articles would be lost. — Warpedmirror 04:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  40. Oppose-If this were changed to only apply to player made characters, not characters in the storyline of a game, then it might be OK, but it's way too vague right now. Kertrats 04:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  41. Strongly Oppose. Many of these characters are important parts of the video game universe and have even permeated into pop culture. Maybe non-notable MMO accounts can be added here, but this should not pass. Cookiecaper 04:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  42. Strongly Oppose, too broad could potentially lead to speedy's of notable characters that "aren't found in a book". K1Bond007 04:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  43. Strongly Oppose. While I don't think that every individual player on games such as World of Warcraft should be covered in a Wikipedia entry (and indeed think that any character in an MMORPG should really not have a page) I also know that this proposal would lead to the deletion of characters such as Link (Legend of Zelda), Link (Legend of Zelda), and so many others. That is wrong. They are a part of our modern myths and must be covered.
  44. Oppose. Too broadly worded, likely to hit mergeable articles. - RedWordSmith 04:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Extremely strong oppose. This would lead to the deletion of articles like Mario, Link (Legend of Zelda), Frog (Chrono Trigger), and countless others. Andre (talk) 05:22, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. I agree with Andre. --Dalkaen 06:01, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  47. Oppose. What Andre said. Fredrik | talk 06:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  48. Oppose Significant characters in single player portions of RPGs have every right to have detailed entries in Wikipedia. RPGs are essentially interactive stories and aren't much different from books. -- Jerec 06:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  49. Oppose Wording is far too poor. Ian Moody 07:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  50. Oppose In it's current form, this could cover some notablr RPG characters. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:18, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  51. Strong oppose, there must be a clear, undisputed line between an established character (like Link and the remaining examples from FF, Earthbound, etc) and an unnotable avatar (from an equally unnotable or even notable person, which in that case warrants at maximum a small mention in the RL person article) from a MMORPG. And also, why only RPGs ? Does this mean that mean I can go create an article on TIE Commander Darth Silvious, and it would have to process through the VfD? Other problems exist: for me, Aragorn would still be a typo of Aragon if I did now noticed a lot of people using it as a nickname. As this removes the VfD voting process, a less-knowledgable admin on the subject could delete a perfectly valid article. There must be also other considerations: while I don't know who is the main character in KoTOR, I really want the try to game for one supporting character: HK-47. Finally, this proposal discriminates the electronic media, while a lot of games now have more distribution than books or movies wS;✉ 10:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  52. Strong Oppose - A character from a game could still be notable. For example, the characters that are an intrinsic part of a certain game defined by the character, non-player characters, such as Luigi (Nintendo character) from the super mario game. In MMORPGS, players create characters: I do not think they often write articles about them, but if we wanted speedy delete criteria for this, then we need to somehow separate player-created from what is part of the game. It is possible that a player-created character in a MMORPG could become legendary or notable and well-known in its own right, i.e. if for some extraordinary reason, the characters appeared in the news, I do not see that likely to happen, but I cannot rule it out as something that could happen. --Mysidia 13:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  53. Strong Oppose - as it's currently written, the proposal is too vague, and would eliminate excessive amounts of legit articles (including material considered front-page worthy, ie, Link (Legend of Zelda)). It needs to be reworded so as to mention only characters that are extremely minor and do not add much to the story, or at least relatively minor. As worded now, it really should not be put into action, unless you'd REALLY like to irritate a lot of Wikipedians. --Shadow Hog 13:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. - McCart42 (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  55. Dsmdgold 14:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  56. In theory, a character from an MMORPG could be covered by the media, making it a perfectly valid article subject. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  57. I originally voted support, having interpreted the proposal as comprising only user-created characters. It now seems that it could be interpreted as including characters devised by game creators, which may well be notable. Hence I now oppose. David | Talk 14:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. I find the information useful at times. Tyoda 16:39, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  59. Put me down as being against this foolish proposal. While I am all for speedy deletion characters created by no-name individuals for online RPGs, notable characters in well-known computer games such as Sephiroth from Final Fantasy VII should have articles. I mean, you might as well ask that we delete Palpatine! elvenscout742 17:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  60. Strongly oppose. An article about a person's RPG character written by themselves is just another form of vanity article, and we don't speedy-delete vanity articles, we VfD them, because they might actually be about a notable person. The reasoning is similar here: there are plenty of notable fictional characters out there, and we have to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, which is what VfD is for. Besides that, it's not at all clear to me that this policy would substantially cut the load on VfD, which appears to be its primary goal. Deco 18:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  61. Strongly oppose. Official RPG characters would be deleted and I personally think they are as much encyclopedic as a movie character. They're part of the games and if we start talking about them in the main article, it will make articles km long. Also, most of the time, a lot of information goes with the characters that could not be included elsewhere without losing track of what is talked about, making them worth their own encyclopedic page --DarkEvil 18:57, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  62. Shanes 05:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  63. Stong Oppose for the same reasons as what User:Dcoetzee and User:DarkEvil stated above. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 11:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. Worded badly. JuntungWu 14:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. Needs rephrasing. ADeveria 15:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  66. (changed from support) It needs rephrasing. Support only if it specifies playing characters who are obviously vanity.- Mgm|(talk) 12:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  67. The proposal is too vague. And is this stuff really burdening VfD heavily? Feydey 23:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. Have you read all the media coverage about fictional game personalities gaining notoriety? David Remahl 03:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  69. Per David. — Phil Welch 04:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  70. Oppose. IanManka 05:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  71. Oppose; hyperfluous; comes in under vanity anyway Lectonar 10:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  72. Oppose; too broad. Many articles about characters in computer games are relevant. Vanity should cover people making articles about their own characters. However, even there, I can imagine in the future online personalities will be very important. See: Snow Crash / Metaverse. Jacoplane 16:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  73. Oppose; same reasons cited above, in addition to the importance of singling out RPG characters to help misguided souls Ghost Freeman T | E / C | D 22:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  74. Strongly Oppose; Wording is bad. Charicters created by agame company as part of aretail game should not be included in this. Ie Gordon Freeman. Player created charicters should fall under this.
  75. Oppose. Too broad. Publisher-created characters from popular RPGs should not be included in this. BrianSmithson 01:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  76. Oppose. The current definition implies that game characters, and RPG characters in particular, are not significant unless it can be proven otherwise. I would support this proposal if the definition was restricted to player-created characters.--BigCow 05:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  77. Oppose. Certainly player-created vanity crap can and should be shot on sight without being dragged through Vfd, but this definition is just too broad. Is this to say that Link should be speedy'd because he's never existed outside of games?!? OK, so there were cartoons and books and whatnot, thus (under this vague wording) guaranteeing him the "right" to remain, but you see what I mean, culturally-significant characters would then "by rights" be speedy'd without a blink of an eyelid. That's not right. We need it the way it is now, more or less. Minor story characters get merged, major ones get their own pages, and any and all made-up ones get speedy'd. Or, at least, the latter is what I want on the policy, and the former is a given. 06:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC) --how come this has a date but not my name? Weirded. GarrettTalk 11:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  78. Oppose. Quite simply, the quite simply clause is quite simply wrong. It is possible that some characters could be notable in the future or already are. We can't risk allowing the deletion of good articles. Secondly, storyline characters are included, and that is a fatal flaw. This proposal is trying to make a subset of vanity a criterion. However, there's a reason we don't have vanity itself. It's too general and hard to apply, and so is this. Superm401 | Talk 13:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  79. Oppose- agree with above reasons. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 20:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  80. Oppose I'm starting to worry that we're trying to put an awful burden on admins with all these categories that require admin checking beyond the obvious is it nonsense. Hiding 23:10, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  81. Fito 19:24, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  82. Rule creep. If they're just random personal characters, then they can be speedied under the current criteria. – Smyth\talk 10:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)