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 keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Golden Sun[edit]

List of characters in Golden Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and covers material already in the two Golden Sun game articles. This material is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. It has been tagged for notability since November, and no attempt to establish any has been made, most likely because it doesn't have any. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, ugh, listcruft. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, not redundant to the game articles (just look at the depth of coverage), doesn't violate any of our core content policies, deletion would be needlessly destructive to Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a perfectly acceptable sub-article of the featured article Golden Sun, as well as the article Golden Sun: The Lost Age. It doesn't tell readers how to beat the game so it's not a game guide. --Pixelface (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Christopher Parham's arguments. Golden Sun is not simply "a book" or "a game", but an entire setting with multiple games, and having the characters together in a merged list like this is appropriate coverage of this universe. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The content of this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and should be transcribed to a suitable fansite as it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think this article fails the relevant guidelines (Previous versions of WP:FICT that still have consensus, WP:N, WP:GAMECRUFT). The above users fail to establish why this is the case though, so I will be a little more elaborative in the hope I can express some of the argumentation that is tacitly assumed by most of the above comments that advocate deletion.
  The platform of the game makes it less likely a character list is needed. Gameboy games have no voice acting, and the limited space available makes story telling in general a lot harder. Only very few characters on this list are actually part of the main story, and only those can be kept with a rationale that they would be essential to good coverage of the game. The characters in 'other major characters' are really just minor when I read their description, and should be removed even if this article is kept along with the minor characters.
  Character lists are usually spinouts from the original articles, but all the character information here could be summarised in those main articles, making a spinout for size reasons unnecessary. There's about four paragraphs available each, and this should be more than enough space to adequately describe each major character. The descriptions in the list are often excessive and redundant, too. Each character's role in the story is described, even if it is minor: describing the characters themselves, and then a good description of the plot, would be a better way to inform readers of the story of this series.
  See here for more argumentation on character lists. User:Krator (t c) 12:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I seconde user:Christopher Parham reasoning. --SelfQ (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appropriate split-off article to deal with this; as even Krator says, it's the usual way. Question of editing should be dealt with elsewhere. DGG (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per all the others here who agree that this article should be kept. As an appropriate sub-article split, notability doesn't need to be asserted; it's asserted in the main article. The length of time that something has been tagged for notability is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and assuming that a subject isn't notable just because of the length of time an article has been tagged for improvement is just absurd. Rray (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Sub articles are appropriate, but all articles need notability independent of the main article, otherwise they are not individually notable. As this has no references, and there is no indication there are any references that can be added, this has no notability and shouldn't be its own article. 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)
  • Notability is not the only reason to have a separate article, but also size contraints. --Pixelface (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but if notability isn't established, none of the rest of the criteria even comes up, as improvement is impossible if there is nothing to add to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a reason that notability is a guideline; it potentially conflicts with other values and we need to weigh it judiciously against those other values. In this case, merging the content to be compatible with WP:NOTE, while quite possible, would make our coverage of this area considerably worse and the articles less useful to readers. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reason for this article to be deleted/merged isn't just guidelines; in this precise case, it is also a policy. Quoted from WP:NOT#PLOT:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.

FightingStreet (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the editing policy, which would support a merge at the very least. --Pixelface (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a single reliable source is cited to establish the subject's notability. A game guide fansite and some YouTube video are not enough. FightingStreet (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one secondary source isn't enough. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:N is not a policy that articles either "pass" or "fail" and it certainly isn't the only thing to consider when deciding what to do with content. --Pixelface (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep Lack of ind. sec. sources in article is troubling, but topic appears quite notable. Having a "characters in" article for a notable fictional topic makes sense especially if there is no one article to merge it into. Plus WP:SIZE plays a role. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs significant cleanup Character descriptions are too plot-oriented. ("Thus did NAME set out on a quest"?? Needs to be out-of-universe writing). Cut character descriptions to one para, focusing on character traits, and then its a more proper spinoff article. --MASEM 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BAGA Keep'- I'm more concerned about getting Golden Sun: The Lost Age improved right now, however once I have the time I would like to cleanup and improve this article. I don't really care if it gets deleted, 'cause I can always bring it back, but... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This does not need to be deleted by any means. It is definitely not a game guide, because it describes each character's history, not centering on their role in the game. Although it does require some references and cleanup, it is not even close to applying for Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Anyways, every game has their own "list of characters" article, so why should Golden Sun be any different? --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup - I'm inclined to think that notability can be found and asserted; regardless, it meets the appropriate criteria for a spinoff article under WP:FICT. That said, the article needs to be drastically cleaned up per WP:WAF and reducing the in-universe information. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the first person to say that this article may actually have notability :) Which is fine, if it does I hope it can be found and added, I'm just saying if there is none to be found... 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability does not seem to be an issue since WP:FICT says "spinout articles may be used for listing non-notable characters or other elements of the work." Even if this list proves "non-notable", the games still are.--Nohansen (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article must establish independent notability from the main article; just because the games are notable, doesn't mean this is too, also known as "notability is not inherited". 18:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" (from Summary style approach for spinout articles). While it adds "editors should strive to establish notability [...] for these spinout articles", I don't see where it says these "lists of characters or other elements" should be deleted unless they prove notable by themselves.--Nohansen (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, while Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, sub-articles (like this one) are "accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation". Also, I never said this list was notable by itself; just that WP:FICT (in a nutshell) sees no problem with sub-articles (like this one) being "used for listing non-notable characters or other elements of the work".--Nohansen (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep potential exists. [1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's just some mentions in some game reviews. FightingStreet (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Cleanup: If Golden Sun was just one game, I'd support merging it into there, but as it's a series of two games, it'd be somewhat harder to adequately cover the characters in them while keeping/attaining FA status in those pages. I pretty much know that this page became more popular because one of the main characters cameoed in the extremely popular Super Smash Bros. Brawl, released six years after the first Golden Sun. And now that I've a high-speed internet connection, I'm personally planning to come back to this page and give it another giant rewriting job, attempting to cut down all the cruft. I view it to be more prudent to wait until after there's been a big attempt to thoroughly clean up/tone down the page to possibly give it another AFD nom; By then any cruft-based content issues should be resolved and any true issues with notability can be put under better review. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate or Laugh At)} 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup It needs a lot of trimming for original research etc., but since it lists the characters of two games, I give it points for practicability even if notability may still be an issue. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:25, 14 March 2008 (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.