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. T. Canens (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Control races[edit]

List of Star Control races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - no independent reliable sources indicating that these fictional species are notable, individually or collectively. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT for describing the races by their role in the storyline and WP:TRIVIA. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lists of characters/races from notable fictional franchises are generally appropriate when each race or character is not itself notable. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after finding sources to WP:verify notability of this game's races. Admittedly this is one of my favorite games so it wasn't hard to know where to look. Some AFDs are just good faith mistakes. Within those sources, there are enough details to create notable articles on some of the individual races in their own right. I'll leave it to someone with enough time and motivation to improve each race's section, and perhaps spin them out at a later time. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while not cited via reliable sources, those sources do not talk about the characters specifically, rather the game as a generalization. Does not have significant coverage to pass WP:GNG for a characters article. --Teancum (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that you actually looked at the sources which actually mention specific races by name and go into detail in praising them... by your interpretation, what would a source need to say about these races for the list to pass the WP:GNG? Shooterwalker (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They mention some of the races, not nearly the 39 mentioned in the article. Several races are completely unsourced. I could see mentioning races as a summary paragraph in their respective games, or in a possible Star Control (series) article, but there's just not enough to carry all of the content in the article. As of now it's a large article that relies on a few small sections that are referenced. Additionally races within the article are covered with an in-universe style. At best I could recommend a move to Star Control (series) and a major, major trim. --Teancum (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you saying that we would need third-party sources for a majority of these races? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article is dedicated to the races themselves, then yes. How is this any different than any other article? The references have to support the content. --Teancum (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that offering third-party sources for individual races would actually make spin-out articles notable. Right now, we only need to verify notability of the list overall. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 15:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Star Control is a notable series of games, many of them having their own articles already. Listing races or characters of a notable series is acceptable for a list article should be. Always has been in the hundreds/thousands of AFDs I've participated in. Dream Focus 18:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there some reason why sourced information can't be placed in the articles for the games themselves? None of them appear to be so long as to warrant a spin-out article. Some don't even mention the races they contain at all. Standalone lists are still subject to policies and guidelines, including establishing the notability of their subjects. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you actually seen this article? What do you mean it isn't long enough to warrant a spin-out article? Look at the size of the thing! Consensus in the vast number of list articles of this nature I've been so far, is almost always keep. WP:LIST Dream Focus 20:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the game articles appear to be so long as to not be able to contain a list of the races that appear. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This page is 70 kilobytes long. Yeah, that does seem rather long to me. Dream Focus 22:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We seem to be talking past each other. I'm not talking about the length of this article in any way. I am talking about the lengths of articles like Star Control, Star Control II and so on. I am not suggesting that the list article be deleted for any reasons having anything to do with the length or size of the list. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the sources provided do not justify this level of detail for a fictional topic. A minute proportion of the material satisfies our WP:WAF guidelines and WP:V policy of secondary sourcing. The topic as a whole is far from WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikia/other wiki - Interested parties should move this content to Wikia. It's free to join, and easy to add new stuff. SharkD  Talk  05:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is where the content should be moved to. SharkD  Talk  21:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The game's villains have been acclaimed, and are on Gamespot's in-house and reader's choice lists of the best villains in the history of video games. Those sorts of things are accepted as references for whatever reason. Alien design is also one of the more important reasons why Star Control II is considered a serious contender for the best game of all time. (Aliens don't talk in I, and in III they never shut up.) We need to ensure that this stuff is covered properly, otherwise the removal of this article just harms our coverage of Star Control II. Now that it has your attention, any ideas? Oh, and I'll toss in a redirect, since some of this stuff will be useful to later editors, and there's no reason to make them start from scratch. --Kizor 08:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Shooterwalker has added in references. Notable third party independent media do talk about the article's subject, which is the races of this game series. Thus it is notable. The subject of the article, not every single entry within it, is what must be deemed notable. Dream Focus 16:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Irc chats and in-game content as sources? Give me a break. While Star Control is notable, notability is not inherented.--Cameron Scott (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you edit that article in line with policy and reliable sources, you are left with the first two paragraphs.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Very interesting article. The coverage in independent reliable sources added by Shooterwalker is easilly sufficient to establish noteability. Per WP:GNG , we dont need to seperatly establish noteability for all the included races. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet absolutely none of it is used beyond the first two paragraphs - why do we need an article that is two paragraphs in length? And can't be any longer because you can't write that article without an in-universe tone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's look at the sources. I think we can all agree that material that originated from the game's production company does not qualify as an independent source as mandated by WP:RS. So sources 9-14 do not establish notability. Source 8 is apparently dead so I can't evaluate it. The rest of the sources are reviews of the games themselves. Some of them are compilations of readers' favorites, which I don't consider reliable for purposes of establishing notability. Others are from sites that appear to exercise editorial control over the reviews and so would serve to establish notability. However, the coverage of the actual alien races in the sources cannot in any way be considered "significant". For example, the McCandless review, relied on the most, offers literally no coverage of the alien races at all beyond a bare list of their names in the first paragraph. There is no coverage of the individual races. There is no coverage of their roles within the narrative other than what side some of them are on. There is no coverage of any real-world impact of or attention to the races. Nothing.
• And even if we were to accept without question that this list of names constitutes significant coverage, it would only constitute coverage for the races in Star Control 3. It would not constitute coverage of all races in the Star Control games, or even a majority of them. The similar reviews for the other games are equally devoid of coverage of the races, none of them including coverage beyond their names. "It exists" does not mean "it's notable". An honest assessment of the sources upon which the claim of notability for this article is based leads inexorably to the conclusion that the races have not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources which are not related to the subject. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The names from other games in the series can be merged into this one. Or hey, they already are, so that saves us some time. Honestly now, there is mention of the races, it a notable aspect of the game, and no reason not to have it as a list article. Not every single thing on the list needs to be mentioned. Reliable sources mention the subject of the article, it clearly notable. What should be added to it can be discussed later on. Dream Focus 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gamespot link in the article says

The sequel simply added an uncommonly good storyline and some very well-integrated role-playing elements, and these three components combined to make a game that's truly one of a kind. The game begins when you return to Earth after being marooned for decades on a distant planet, only to find that the human race has been enslaved by a hostile caterpillar-like race called the Ur-Quan. Separated from your species, your only hope is to try to free Earth and put an end to the Ur-Quan conflict. In so doing, you travel across the galaxy, upgrade your alien vessel from a skeletal husk into the most powerful starship around, recruit the assistance of a number of memorable alien races, and do battle against many others. The 18 different races in Star Control II were all distinctively different, and none of them fit the generic science-fiction stereotypes that have always been so common in games.

It goes on to mention they had their own theme music, making them even more distinct. Can we all agree that the Gamespot review did give notable mention/coverage to the races of one of these games? Dream Focus 19:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it a notable aspect of the game, It's a notable part of the game if multiple independent reliable sources comment on it, without them, the only way you can come to that conclusion is original research. You have another sources to say there were races in the game and maybe a line about each but nothing to support the lavish in-universe rubbish that article currently consists of. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that Gamespot review is notable? What about the All Game]review, which had six paragraphs, one of them entirely about the races, and mentioning several of them. And its not original research, its common sense. They mention the races in every interview, and not just in passing, always as a favorable part of the game. Dream Focus 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They mention every race individually and with enough detail to construct an article with? Really? Can you point me towards that because I can't see it in any of the references currently used. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And right here is the crux of the problem, a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:Reliable sources. Sources mention them, so they're notable. No. Simply being mentioned in a source is not the threshold for notability. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is the threshold. "The aliens are really neat, they add to the fun" or whatever can't reasonably be construed as supporting a plot-heavy OR-laden list. The sources support mention of the races in the relevant game articles. They do not support a separate article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you actually looked at the sources? I decided to shy away from quoting entire paragraphs from them. But the sources literally spend entire paragraphs giving examples of how these races are fantastic, of which I just summarized with a general quote. But consider this quote:

Optional custom heading

The first alien you are likely to encounter is the cowardly Captain Fwiffo. Guarding Pluto all by himself, he sets the tone for the entire game with his opening line, "Attention big, mean, hostile alien vessel hovering overhead in an obvious attack posture," which he follows by blurting out the location of his home world and his race's secret codes. Other races span a range of emotions from the comical Utwig, depressed over the loss of a gadget they bought from interstellar hucksters, to the disturbingly scary Orz and the tragic Burvixese and Androsynths who are exterminated before the game begins and are known only from rumor and ruins. But nothing compares to the horrible plight of the Ur-Quan, ostensibly the major villains in the game. By the time you learn about the millennia of enslavement and mind-control they've had to endure in the past, not to mention the self-inflicted excruciating torments they underwent to gain freedom, the Ur-Quan become more sympathetic than most of the friendly-but-fluttery allies populating your own fleet. This is a rare and praiseworthy design achievement.

• It might be a little confusing for people who have never played the game. But in this game races = characters. You encounter "an Ur-Quan alien", but really there's a whole collective biography and backstory. You rarely encounter the lead character from a race or species. Instead, these characters actually speak with a collective voice. "We think you should leave now." It's why this is a list of races, and not just a list of characters. But there's no doubt that it's the characters in this game that critics are talking about when they call it one of the greatest of all time. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, thank you, I have read the sources and we all seem bright enough to understand that "races=characters". What does your quoted paragraph tell us of, say, the Utwig? They are comical and depressed. Other sources are just as trivial: a half-sentence telling us that one race is caterpillar-like in appearance; another half-sentence telling us that another is crystalline; another that lists off a handful of race names in a single sentence. Not enough to hang an article on. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The key is we're not here to establish the notability of Utwig alone. We're here to establish the notability of these characters as a whole. And there's no denying that this third party source addresses the subject of all these races directly in detail. It spends literally two paragraphs explaining why these characters are so compelling, in an article that is trying to explain why this is one of the greatest games of all time.
• I'm not sure what more we would need to establish the notability of these races. But I wish you would show me a guideline that explains how, because I would be happy to help this article comply. I already added several sources and there's more where that came from. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no, it has one paragraph that talks about the races. The first paragraph mentions a specific alien but does not identify his race. And again, the second is just "There's this race who's funny and this race who's scary and these tragic races and then the main race and they're very well done." Say this were a review of Foo: The Movie and it included a paragraph like "Along the way, Jerry meets a butcher, a baker and a candlestick maker. The butcher is funny, the baker is angry and the candlestick maker is depressed. They are all well-written characters and the actors do good jobs." Would this sustain List of Foo: The Movie characters that included multi-paragraph mini-biographies of every character within the film? No. It would support a cast/character list within the film's article. And that's what should be done with the races. Each race can be listed in the game article per WP:PSTS and the material from the various reviews and such on the list article can be used to write up one- or two-sentence descriptions. Currently Star Control includes no information on the races and the articles for 2 and 3 have bare lists. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather have separate articles for each race and character that gets mentioned? They use to have that, but then they all got merged here. Dream Focus 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've explained pretty clearly what I'd like. I'd like for the articles on the three games to have reliably sourced information about the races in them and for this article to be deleted. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dozens of articles were merged into this one. [1] It was also apparently sent to AFD once before, and was kept(see the talk page for discussions about that and previous mergers). I see an edit war going on in the article itself, with someone who wants to delete the entire article taking out large chunks of it, only to be reverted. Please stop doing that. If the article subject is deemed notable, then it will be kept. Every single article on the list article does not have to be proven notable in itself. Just as listing all the books a writer published doesn't just include the notable ones, or a list of all the movies and shows someone has been on doesn't exclude the short lived easily forgotten failures. Dream Focus 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's kept, with it's current sourcing and in-universe tone, the article will be about three paragraphs long after clean-up. You simply don't have the sources to support anything longer. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the reality is that the coverage given gives enough to summarize all of the races in general, not to branch out and explain each one. The WP:INUNIVERSE tone does not help the article either. Sourced material can easily be merged into Star Control (series) and this page can be transwikied to some sort of wikia if necessary. It just comes down to WP:GNG, and while a summary is adequately sourced and notable, the individual races aren't. --Teancum (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By saying that we've successfully sourced three paragraphs, you've basically admitted that there's a notable topic here. Not trying to be snide. In fact, I'll be magnanimous: this article desperately needs clean-up, because it IS the result of merging together a bunch of poorly written articles. I will roll up my sleeves and clean it up myself, even. But we have to stop talking passed each other with hard keep/delete stances. I hope that you'll side with some kind of temporary keep or merge (or maybe the creation of a new series article). I'll even promise that we can delete it if we can't fix it -- you'll have my !vote. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the sort. The summary of the characters is notable, but when you peel back anything that doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, it's a stub article. If you're going that direction with it, then Star Control (series) needs to be the focus. A series article should definitely come before a characters article, as the former can envelope the latter, but not the other way around. Again, I have no argument with a races section in a series article, but the races do not have enough independent notability to warrant their own article. --Teancum (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I would dispute that the sources provided establish notability because they are not significant coverage. A sentence here, a paragraph there, all from much larger sources about the game as a whole. If there were a couple of sources that were solidly about the races then the current sources would be useful to fill in some blanks but on their own they simply aren't significant. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said anything of the sort either, if you only can source three paragraphs of mixed content, you'd be better off simply using the sources and the material in other Starcraft articles - nothing there supports 'List of' because you can't actually source the list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No way to convince each other it seems, nor any reason to keep arguing about it. This AFD will surely close is No consensus. Some of us believe the information there is enough to establish the notability of the topic, others do not. Dream Focus 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you can't source it, it's a frankly pointless 'victory' because it will be stubbed and then likely redirected because it will be a list without an actual list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you fail to get your way and have the article deleted, you shouldn't just go and mass delete most of it anyway. Hopefully you won't start some lame edit war. And there are sources which do justify having a list of the races, and if you have a list, you make it a complete one, not just showing some things. Dream Focus 15:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be mass deleted because it's unsourced (fails WP:V), has WP:UNDUE problems, is in-universe. This is very standard reasons to remove content at wikipedia. If you want a complete list, find sources, what is hard for you to understand about this? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source is fine for the information in it, it thus passing WP:V. You only have to prove the article's subject is notable, not every thing within it. Dream Focus 06:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: I guess the confusing part is that we added entire paragraphs worth of sources, which was the reason for this AFD. Reliable game reviews where 25% of the review talks about why the races and characters are so compelling. Then someone says we need sources for the individual sections, which flies in the face of "Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content". Then someone did that anyway. We've complied with every guideline and policy. But a few editors have teamed up to say that if even a few portions of the article are unsourced, we should delete the whole thing, including the referenced facts. It flies in the face of every known policy. Not just WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, but WP:V and WP:N which says that you've satisfied the minimum standards of inclusion once you have third-party sources. On that note, I've done here. Go ahead and have the WP:LASTWORD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read what people are actually saying - you can source material about 'Races' (collective), you can source their use in the game (as a collective) but there are no sources for the individual commentary/analysis of the races, it's all based on playing the game and original research (for the analysis bits). This is the crux of the issue, there is no material for the list bit of the list. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Cameron Scott. Wikipedia policy has not been complied with. There is sourcing for a small summary of the characters as whole. The races themselves are either poorly sourced or not sourced at all. Additionally the sources are passing mentions in things such as reviews and not WP:Significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the provided secondary sources justify keeping the races list as a separate article. With the exception of the "History and reception" section, 95% of the article is in-universe plot reiteration and the remainder is either synthesis ("in an entirely separate science fiction series a different race is described as coming from this planet") or speculation ("The Yorn resemble Star Trek tribbles and as such would not be capable of a technological society on their own"). The arguments made to keep are junk:
  1. Notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter if Star Control is notable;
  2. It doesn't matter how many articles were folded into this one if the entire subject warrants little more than a couple of paragraphs in the parent Star Control articles;
  3. One race appearing in a GameSpot top ten list is nowhere near sufficient to justify a standalone article;
  4. How "interesting" the article is is irrelevant;
  5. How many previous AfDs the content in question has had is irrelevant;
  6. That an AfD is full of boilerplate inclusionist junk is not a reason to close as No Consensus;
  7. WP:PRESERVE can be accomplished by a merge of the three paragraphs of notable content, and WP:ATD could be accomplished by transwiki. I'd be happy to assist with either of those myself.
• Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has been further improved with an additional dozen cites for out of universe information . Hopefully this AfD was already destined for a Keep close as Shooterwalker had easily established notability with the excellent sources he added. Per WP:Notability "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content." (my emphasis) Its true that some of the individual races are only mentioned in passing, but that only prevents us having dedicated articles on said races. What matters for this article is that the references have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources on the general topic of races in Star Craft and this is easily demonstrated.

Here's a sample quote from allgame.com showing the signifcant coverage of races,theres plenty more quotes in the existing sources.

“

Other races span a range of emotions from the comical Utwig, depressed over the loss of a gadget they bought from interstellar hucksters, to the disturbingly scary Orz and the tragic Burvixese and Androsynths who are exterminated before the game begins and are known only from rumor and ruins. But nothing compares to the horrible plight of the Ur-Quan, ostensibly the major villains in the game. By the time you learn about the millennia of enslavement and mind-control they've had to endure in the past, not to mention the self-inflicted excruciating torments they underwent to gain freedom, the Ur-Quan become more sympathetic than most of the friendly-but-fluttery allies populating your own fleet. This is a rare and praiseworthy design achievement.

”

FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Further improved" since when? Certainly not since my last comment. Adding "GameSpot says" to the end of every section doesn't magically make it out-of-universe. The assertion that one paragraph of a game review (which assigns exactly one adjective to each of these races) supports what the article currently contains is as dishonest as I've seen on here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No such assertion has been made. It should be clear to an intelligent person that the thrust of my point is that the collective coverage in the sources establish notability. The quoted paragraph is an example, and clearly presented as such. The quote may only use one adjective per race, but it uses several sentences to build up to the very significant claim that the handing of the Ur-Quan represents a praiseworthy and rare design achievement. Not often designers succeeds in making gamers feel sorry for their main enemy. In future please avoid making personel attacks such as implying an editor is dishonest, and be thankfull youre not getting a formal warning on your talk page! FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.