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. Consensus is that this subject is insufficiently notable for inclusion. As it is a potential search term, it will be recreated as a redirect to The Sims. After reviewing the article and the target there's really nothing here worth merging, but I am willing to provide a userfied version of this article if someone requests it for the purpose of expanding related articles. Shereth 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer Goth[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. No reliable sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Certainly notable within The Sims community which is substantial. I'm reminded of the Pokemon test here (which Mortimer Goth would pass with flying colours). Alternatively, if the article absolutely must be deleted, replace with disambiguation page linking both The Sims and The Sims 2.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You realize the pokemon test has been made completely void by the listification of all but, like, four pokémon? Nifboy (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Current article appears to be copy of an old version of the one currently on the Sims Wikia - however would suggest if sources could be found it should be Merged to Sims 2, with a disambiguation page per S Marshall. Does not have notablity independant of the seris, but an article on the family may be a reasonable breakout from the various Sims articles. NullofWest (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response good point--disambiguation page should also direct to The Sims wikia!--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we shouldn't. We haven't got any special relationship with that Wiki, we should not be linking to it as it is unreliable. NullofWest, could you please link to where this has been copied from? This article is probably a copyright violation. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. The article is located here: http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Mortimer_Goth - but there wasn't actually an old diff that looks like ours NullofWest (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no copyvio issue here ; if it came from the wikia page, which is GFDL, then its fine here (and vice versa). However, on the point of linking to Wikias, that is what we should be doing for content that otherwise doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as long as the Sims editors on WP have decided that that is a reliable Wiki for such additional information. It is the necessary compliment to where material should go when it is not notable or part of WP's normal coverage. --MASEM 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking something from a GFDL source and not citing it is a copyvio issue, which is what I thought had happened here. J Milburn (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, if the article was copied from the wikia to here, the history needed to be copied as well per GFDL. However, I cannot figure out if this is the case or not. --MASEM 23:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, the GFDL doesn't speak of requiring history which is very much a wiki concept. The main point is retaining the details of the contributors, which we generally do by history, but copying the history from an unrelated wiki where the users may neither have an account here or be completely differenet users with the same names here would make no sense. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A link back to the Sims Wikia (preferably in a few places- edit summaries, external links/references, talk page) would be sufficient in terms of GFDL. If the page was then deleted on the Sims Wikia, we may have a problem- I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. HereFord 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Edison (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unoriginal research? It's based on the authors' experiences playing the game- not a single source cited. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a cool for Wikipedia:SOFIXIT not deletion as reliable sources exist. Plus, the article was created a mere two days ago. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Sims, as the subject is covered in all the appropriate detail there. Nifboy (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure game guide material with no assertion of real-world notability. Three mentions in "the official strategy guide" for the game is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Stormie (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are nevertheless references in reliable sources and demonstrate notability in that the subject is not a one-off character. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An official game guide is not a reliable source- "official" = first party. Furthermore, we are not a game guide, and so if the only material available is suitable only for a game guide, it is not suitable for us. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Citing a game guide no more makes us a game guide than citing an "official" government report makes us the government. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Including material that is worthy of only being in a game guide makes us a game guide, but the source is still primary- not reliable. Thus, this article fails our policy on verifiability. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I find that a good deal of material in game guides is actually wikipedic and the idea that primary sources are unreliable is inconsistent with encyclopedic tradition in that primary sources are reliable when used in certain manners and in the manner used here we have no reason to doubt them. For the secondary source information, I recommend preview or reviews that mention the character. Collectively, these pass are policy on verifiability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Primary sources are sometimes useful for referencing uncontroversial material, but they are usless for determining the notability of a subject- the worthiness of it to be included in the encyclopedia. If reviews that have extensively discussed the character are provided, then perhaps we can have a reasonable discussion- until that time, keeping the article on the off chance that some exist (especially when this article is weak and based on original research anyway) is foolish. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see anything "controversial" about this material. Not every video game character gets mention in game guides, especially not in multiple ones, as not every game gets a guide, which means that inclusion in guides is measure of notability in itself. As for reviews, Salon's review does cover the characters. To me the multiple appearances in the games and coverage in multiple publications provides the notability of this character relative to characters who do not appear in multiple games or who are not covered in multiple guides and the out of universe comments in reviews of the game provides information that can be used in a reception section. I am not sure if PC Gamer has an online archive, but I would be curious if any back issues have interviews with makers of the game, that could provide some of the creation information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said there was anything controversial in the article- come on, you're an intelligent person, you don't need to resort to twisting my words. Verifying information and judging the encyclopedic value of subjects can require different kinds of sources- the official game guides may provide some information which would be relevant in an article, but one could not base an article off them, and one could not justify an article existing because of the primary sources discussing the subject. The review you mention has only a passing mention, and, again, the mention is irrelevant- it has no encyclopedic worth; there's nothing we could extract from the article for use in our own. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, what about this article which starts of with a few paragraphs on the character, i.e. he seems to be a fairly central character. Why not instead of outright deletion at least merge and/or redirect without deleting the edit history to List of Canon Sims Characters#The Goth.27s or The Sims 2#Characters. Obviously a number of editors believe it a legitimate search term, so we could always redirect to one of those sections and then as/if additional sources come up go from there. I think that would be a fair and reasonable compromise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. --Hank Pym (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? As indicated above it passes both. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, as indicated above, it passes neither. You hold a minority view- confronting everyone who disagrees with you directly can be intimidating. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I indicated above, it passes both, but I just noticed something seriously disconcerting about the validity of this discussion above. So, hold on a second, please. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - As you indicated above, this meets your very loose notability guidelines, not Wikipedia's own. Mentions in first party sources and a passing mention (by name only, no details) in a review does not assert notability. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My notability guidelines are consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. They assert notability by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hank Pym has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Fredrick day, please disregard. --Stormie (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Please note that neither myself nor Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles are sock puppets of banned users, so our comments in reply should not be ignored. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that User:Hank Pym has been confirmed as a ban evading sock per checkuser. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Expand To Clarify my current postion: I belive that Mortimer does not on his own meet WP:N, but that the family as a whole can, therefore I propose the article should be merged with those on Bella Goth and Cassandra Goth into something like Goth family (Sims Seris) - with information on Alexander Goth as well, if he's deemed noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NullofWest (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per J. Milburn and Stormie, and yes LGRdC I'm aware of WP:PERNOM. Stifle (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, see rationale below. Delete, completely unsourced with no evidence of notability, and I haven't seen much evidence that there is significant reliable source coverage of this character out there at all. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 23:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two published game guides and references in reviews equals both notability and coverage in reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - After the addition of some sources, I see a couple of reviews that open up with a brief mention of this default character as a way of providing an in-universe flavour of the game... I think Lovelac put it very well in that this guy is the game equivalent of the guy that comes with the picture frame. Overall I think there's probably about a paragraph's worth of verifiable information which would be best merged to List of Canon Sims Characters, along with his fictional family members that also currently have articles even worse than this one. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Sims - a fictional character in The Sims, zero claim to notability, zero independent sources --T-rex 00:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The appearances in multiple pubolished sources and multiple games equals notability and reviews of the games equals independent sources. Redirectable material is redirected without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am only stating that there is no content worth merging. I have no problem if the article is redirected while leaving the history intact. --T-rex 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief. The character is never discussed in anything other than gameguide terms in reliable third-party applications. The mind, she boggles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As indicated above, the character is indeed discussed in reviews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were not discussed, they were mentioned. There's a big difference. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Multiple times though is significant. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Mortimer Goth is not a well-known video game character like Mario, Sonic, or Link. He is the digital equivalent of the guy who comes with a picture frame. Lovelac7 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirectable material need not also be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but it needn't be kept, either. Could go either way, Lovelac7 is simply indicating that (s)he believes it should be deleted when redirected, perhaps to prevent people reverting to the current version. J Milburn (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - When in doubt we keep. There's no compelling reason to delete it as there's no reason presented as to what Wikipedia actually gains by deleting it. One can redirect keeping the edit history intact and protect the redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non-notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the game. The article reads like his character bio in a strategy guide. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But "no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the game" is. Please be fair in how you represent the arguments of other Wikipedians. It's one thing to disagree. It's something else to misrepresent what they're saying. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It isn't when it is not true. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then say "that's not true", and WP:PROVEIT. Please stop misrepresenting !votes as WP:JNN if they contain information about how or why the article isn't notable. Randomran (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I already have. I can hold a banana up to someone and they can say, "I don't see a banana", but it doesn't change that I am in fact holding one up. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm glad you held up the "banana". But I'm asking you politely to stop using the WP:JNN essay when someone has attempted to explain how an article has failed our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The user in question has said it is his mission to delete articles and that he would never argue to keep and in fact never has. Therefore, the claims of not being notable or how it is not notable are never really made open-mindedly or objectively from that particular account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you ever argued to keep an article? Seriously though, a user who edits solely to rid Wikipedia of crappy articles on non-topics is doing a good job in my book. We're all volunteers- we can edit in the areas we wish to, and this user wishes to help the encyclopedia by arguing to remove articles that should not be here. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course I have argued to keep articles. Do you mean have I ever argued to delete? If so, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams equation, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult-child sex (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alhaji sani labaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagot Beast, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt harp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canyon of the Vaginas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clint McGeady, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delboo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorian's identity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy-cook rice (joke), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enjoy Your Plague, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funeral For My Chemical Valentine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatzfeldt Syndrome, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to Make a Chocolate Souffle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdenominational Church of Huberianism (Apostolic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jieming Unit, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Smith (musician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Langton's Speech, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Nixoer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurtis Krow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Foresta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Tracy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostytutka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular coffee for a regular guy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revenge Of Chucky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runescape secret letters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabahad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salomon Satele, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Levy (MMA Fighter), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Creed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serg Klimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takes One To Know One, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buggy Drink, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fax Machine Monster of Basildon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The musical parody, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Patrick Star Show, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy "Biggs" Soper, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's New Happening on Disney Channel India, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.I.T.C.H. The Movie: The Ultimate War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yin & Yang: Might and Magic School, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stormie/DRV notes, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Fancruft, etc. (yes, I have argued to delete in even more than the preceding examples). And I am willing to chance my stance from delete to keep (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis) when new sources are available. A user who is never willing to do that is not fairly or accurately reflecting the reality of the article and its potential. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia and merge to List of Canon Sims Characters along with Bella, Cassandra, and Alexander Goth. This fits much better in that list. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the general notability guidelines because there is no significant coverage of this subject in reliable sources independent of the game. The only source that was found only mentions the character by name, and does not offer any factual or critical information to write a WP:VERIFIABLE article. Randomran (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It passes the general notability guideline because there is substantial enough coverage of this subject in reliable sources and is verifiable by any reasonable definition of the word. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only source you found does not verify the contents of the article. I'm quoting: "I set to work fixing Chris up with Mortimer Goth from across the street; five or six visits and about 20 compliments later, they finally kissed." That's it. You can't write a verifiable article with that. Randomran (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - With that and with the other sources mentioned above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't cite reliable, independent sources which would grant it notability under the WP:GNG. We haven't enacted WP:FICT as a daughter guideline, so we can't claim any inherited notability from the larger work of fiction. The sources listed in this AfD but not added to the article either seem to be tangential (reviews or one-liners) or not independent. I don't see a problem with a redirect and nothing should stop us from transwikiing the article, but both of those are editorial considerations. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per per LGRdC and S Marshall's commentary (no sense repeating it -- they said it best and first) Ecoleetage (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

I noticed that the article was only created on August 11 and that no merge or redirect discussions were attempted on the talk page first. Therefore, per Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, we should have first been discussing the article's potential with its creator and exhausted these other options on at least the talk page for at least a couple of days or so before coming here. Barring there were hoax or libel concerns, we should give editors that courtesy and then if they say they don't have any other sources, okay, but the AfD actually now seems a bit premature. After all, a mere five days is hardly sufficient time from article creation to the end of the AfD to have sufficient exhausted all possibilities as to what to do with our coverage of this notable and verifiable fictional character. After all, consider how the article for even the most notable video game character "developed" after in its first five days: [1]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this character is evidently not one millionth as notable as Mario despite having appeared in a series of games which have sold more copies than most of the Mario series combined, I find this to be an apples-to-oranges comparison. It is my considered opinion that this article could be left for five years without developing into a worthwhile article. I sense that what I about to hear is a proposal that it be left for five years just in case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)If I'm honest, I didn't expect the AfD to be controversial in any way. However, this is a modern subject, a youth subject and a computing subject- all three of which are factors that would imply the vast majority of information could be found online. For this reason, I would argue that fives days was more than enough to find and assess sources- all that have been found are primary sources, unreliable sources and the briefest of mentions- nothing that we can work with to produce a decent article. If that is all that can be found on the medium suited to the subject, what do you honestly think we will be able to find offline, even if given a long time? J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Chris, why not? Notability is not going decline, it could only increase. Less sources are not going to be found, only more could be. I see no reason not to give more than a few days. Why not contact the article creator and request he look through some game magazines without online archives to see if they cover this character? To J, I subscribe to EGM and GameInformer and they have sections on fictional characters without of universe coverage all of the time. Sometimes, if I am reading by a computer I even cite the magzines. Take for example the July issue of GameInformer. Its cover story focuses on a game called Infamous. On page 47, the bulk of the page is taken up by giant labeled images of three central characters with section headings on them titled "The Voice of Survival," "The Ex," and "The Nut." In the whole paragraphs devoted to each of these characters is not merely an in universe description but out of universe comments such as a comparison of "The Ex" as "Lois Lane with synringes." I would be somewhat surprised if multi-page magazine previews and reviews on The Sims do not have similar coverage. Yes, Google will find some results these magazines post on their affiliated websites, but the magazines do not regularly post all of their coverage online. Now, I do not subscribe myself to the PC magazines, so I am not in the next few minutes able to say go through those, but I would expect that a character with appearances in at least two games and coverage in at least two strategy guides (I own a good deal of games, most of them actually do NOT have published guides), has a realistic potential for us finding this additional out of universe material. Given that we do not have deadlines, why outright delete it? Why not at worst merge and redirect it? Why not userfy it for the article creator (not me, I have as much as I can handle of userfied content for now!) and request he/she add some additional sources before placing it back in mainspace? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I was just about to cite the Game Informer stuff to the article I mentioned above and lo and behold someone already did so in this section! By the way, please note that the article under discussion here has been improving since nomination and if I was able to do that much in so short of time, I belive it establishes enough potential for it to realistically be saved in some capacity, even if merged and redirected. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of the principle characters in a very notable game. The article is not sufficiently detailed to serve a a game guide, so that's irrelevant. Anyone who has actually worked on these topics as I have will know that the material is poorly indexed, widely dispersed, and elusive, and requires considerable time for sourcing.We do not delete as unsourced, only as unsourcable, and it would take quite a lot to convince me that none of the scattered discussions of this game cover the character significantly. In any case, there is no reason not to merge. DGG (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to various targets outlined above. At some point we need to be practical; the topic of an article should be notable, but not every notable topic deserves an article - this character is a prime example where a better discussion of the character can be made when talking about all the characters in the game as a whole. We can still provide the search term and the redirection and further coverage on a sims character page and the link to the sims wikia, but a full article is not needed. --MASEM 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge to List of Sims Characters. Notable character in notable game. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to a list of the Sims characters. Does not appear to be notable outside that game's universe. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, you've already 'voted' above to delete. Could you strike whichever comment no longer applies? Thanks. J Milburn (talk) 16:14, 18 August 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.