Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in the Resident Evil series (2nd nomination)

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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures in the Resident Evil series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Ever since its last AFD, it was still not improved or fixed in any way, and is still WP:GAMEGUIDE content about non-notable monsters. The majority of references are to Resident Evil guides, etc. It's also in need of cleanup - better to delete it and leave this to an external wiki or FAQ. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever content could be merged to List of characters in the Resident Evil series and delete everything else. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Resident Evil and leave it at that, this content shouldn't be here per WP:NOTGUIDE. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In my reading, this list does not fall under WP:NOTGUIDE, as it is not an instruction manual, travel guide, internet guide, textbook or annotated text, scientific journal or research paper, nor a case study. It does however specificaly meet the inclusion requirements of WP:LIST, and the sources allow that it also meets WP:STAND. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Look again under "instruction manual" (item #1) and you'll see it lists "game guides". If there's no real-world relevance to these creatures outside the game then this is a game guide. I agree that WP:LIST and WP:STAND aren't limiting factors here; if this article told us fun facts about game monsters in prose we'd have the same problem. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah... read it.. carefully. This list is definitely not a game guide... it is a list. If it instructed in how to play or instructed in strategies to use or in how to win the game, then it'd be a guide. This does not, so game guide does not apply... specially as its notability is established by the existence of published works on this topic, showing the real world relevance in that Resident Evil is a significant, notable real-world franchise. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand that this is a list, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not this is a game guide. For example, the first two citations are to illustrate where a monster can be found and what kind of attacks to expect.[1] Most of these entries only discuss plot. I would consider useful information like "they come back to life more dangerous than before", "they release their offspring upon death", "the venom kills in minutes", etc to be gameplay tips. I agree that we're meeting the notability requirement; all I'm disputing is what significance this information has outside of the games. What relevance does any of this have on anything outside of Resident Evil? --Explodicle (T/C) 15:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to the character list. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Muchness (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - important fictional elements should be worked into the plot summaries of the individual games. The "Tyrant" has a citation to a gamespot "Top 10 Video Game Villains" article. This should be mentioned in the Resident Evil (series) overview. In the offchance that a particular monster has multiple, significant coverage from reliable publications, then I have no objection to a split-off article for that monster. Marasmusine (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you suggesting that we merge and delete? --Explodicle (T/C) 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to see any of this material merged, no. Marasmusine (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Just redirect it to the character list, and if anybody wants to use some of that content to make a new better page, then they can. It needs to be made from scratch if it can ever survive again. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 13:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think whatever's done we have to be careful about. The reason I edited things on the page is because I used the page in the first place, NOT as a game guide of any sort. Wikipedia has Real people and animal pages. So why not Character and Creature pages? --Kurtle (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect - the page has never really improved, TBH. There's never going to be a lot of sources available, and it's a guide/pov/general shit magnet. Geoff B (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : This page is the result of countless other AFDs that resulted in "merge" or "redirect". Rather than having multiple shotty articles, we know have one big crappy article. As someone who has been watching this article for years now, I regret to say that it has not noticeably improved since the last AFD. This has been happening all across Resi-related articles. The best approach to betting these articles would be recreate as a user's subpage, and work on it there. We have taken similar approaches to Jill Valentine and Nemesis (Resident Evil). --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notice the template at the bottom of the article? See how many books, games, and whatnot in this series? This is a fine list of characters found in a notable series. Dream Focus 11:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Creatures don't inherit notability from the series. There are a lot of primary in-universe sources, but nothing that establishes real-world importance. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, possibly curting some ofthe detail. This list is already the result of a long series of compromises.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

• Which of these creatures has real-world importance? I don't think previous compromises should force us one way or the other in this discussion. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per the the GFDL as aspects of this article have been merged to and from it multiple times now and assuredly as a result portions of the contribution history must be kept for legal reasons. For example, in this edit and this edit, User:Randomran notes his merge of a whole section of material written by other users from this article to another article. This merged material was then merged elsewhere in this edit to an article that became a Good Article as listed at Talk:Nemesis (Resident Evil)/GA1. While a merge or even redirect with edit history intact would be acceptable, the edit history cannot be deleted. It would take a while to list all of the many instances in which material was merged to and from this article, but as even implied above, we know it has happened. Moreover, this list concerns some creatures that appear in over a half dozen games, what will be four theatrically released films, novels, a calendar, on clothing, etc. and that are covered in various video game magazines and strategy guides and in the case of the latter in an analytical manner in reviews and previews, and that also appear in other merchandising including replicas people can hold in the real world. One such reliable secondary source is Jesse Schedeen's "Best Resident Evil Bosses: Ten of our personal favorites, brought to you by Umbrella Corp." found on IGN's website (I have come across at least a half dozen of such lists featuring items from this article and some of these creatures do indeed appear on non-Resident Evil specific lists as well, i.e. ones that rank Nemesis and Tyrants for example as top bosses, monsters, etc. across all video games). In any event, notice that IGN is a blue link and not a mere fan forum. They are familiar to millions of video game enthusiasts around the world and as being part of the astonishingly popular Resident Evil series (easily one of the top fifty or so most significant video game series) have an influence on various other creatures that appear in other survival horror video games and even films. These items undeniably meet WP:N and WP:V, regardless of the state of the article, which is absolutely improveable. Per WP:PRESERVE, there is no justifiable need to redlink here (it is not a hoax, libelous, nor a copy vio) and at worst we would redirect with edit history intact or even transwiki per WP:BEFORE. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have written an analysis at WT:Articles for deletion/List of creatures in the Resident Evil series (2nd nomination)#Content movement and resulting required attribution. Flatscan (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All that shows is that some of this content has indeed been merged elsewhere and therefore cannot be deleted per the GFDL. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and continue work on sourcing the article. Since there are official game guides it will be easy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is not a single reliable source that discuss this list of creatures at all. This list is of no realityverse notability at all. Whichever of the fictional creaturs are important to this series are already mentioned in the appropriate articles (probably at undue weight and length, but whatever). (The policy claim about the GFDL up above, often asserted by that user, is pure hooey).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remember to make honest and informed comments in deletion discussions. Nothing in your post is factually accurate, which reflects either deliberate dishonesty or ignorance of the topic under discussion. I suppose I'd rather it be the latter, but given the mocking of editors in other discussions, it is hard to legitimize such an obviously false "vote" rather than argument. Even the quickest of Google News and Google Books searches reveal coverage of these creatures in reliable sources and in scores of reliable sources. They meet not only a common sense standard of notability, but even the most stringest of subjective interpretations of Wikipedia's ever evolving concepts of notbility. Even the others with bolf face deletes above acknowledge that aspects of this article have been merged to and from it some untold amount of times and no reason exists whatsoever for redlinking beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason. As such no one with any familiarity of the topic under discussion is calling for an outright redlinking rather than a transwikying or redirecting of some sort. Compelling arguments exist for merging, further improving, transwikying etc, but there is no reason nor need to redlink and in any event WP:JNN is not a reason either, especially when beyond not true. Thank you and Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because there are multiple reliable sources that discuss these creatures. This is the appropriate way of handling characters like this, and much better than discussing them in each pertinent article. If the content is relevant enough by some to be considered for a redirect to Resident Evil, it's just a relevant in and appropriate to be collected here. WHat can be fixed through the course of normal editing does not belong at AfD, despite the numerous comments that seem to dislike its inclusion. Yes, it should be continued to be worked on... but per WP:WIP andWP:DEADLINE it should be kept without a demand or expectation that it need all be done immediately. Closer, please note.... tossing out what can be improved is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources alone do not make a topic suitable for inclusion. Also, redirects (unlike articles) don't have to be relevant at all. This article doesn't have to be fixed right now - we just need some evidence that it can be fixed; a source that discusses the subject's importance outside of the game world. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this list is not an instruction manual, travel guide, internet guide, textbook or annotated text, scientific journal or research paper, or a case study, it does not fall under the criteria of WP:NOTGUIDE . It does however specificaly meet the inclusion requirements of WP:LIST, and the sources allow that it also meets WP:STAND. Requesting that non-gaming sources discuss it is not mandated by WP:V or WP:RS. But RS meeting GNG is mandated by WP:N... and many such have been included.... during the course of normal editing. A reasonable presumption that interested editors will continue improving the article as they have been doing is a call for keep, not delete. This presumption accepts that they will do as they are able to improve the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my reply to your other post near the top of the discussion about whether or not this is an instruction manual. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per A Nobody, mainly, although explicitly not his perennial GFDL argument, which is bollocks. As Nobody rightly points out, this is not List of characters from Some Crappy Anime That No One Has Ever Heard Of, it's a major, major video game franchise, and a spin-off characters article is hardly excessive. HiDrNick! 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Non-notable" is neither true nor a valid argument. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Nobody, you have been counseled about this sort of badgering of others, and especially about referring to WP:JNN. Non notable is indeed a valid argument, although it's a weak one if it's not accompanied by substantiation of what has been done to establish non notability (either directly or by reference to the work of others in so establishing it) or by refutation of the arguments of others that attempt to establish notability. Further, there was an RfC about this behaviour of yours, and there was a pretty strong view that you need to stop this... that you chose not to participate does not obviate the findings of the majority of participants that this is disruptive behaviour. I could go and annotate every other remark you've made in this AfD where you violated the findings of that RfC (they are numerous) but I hope that one is sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:GNG. Most of the content is unsourced. Most of the references that are there are to the 'Official Game Guide' or 'Official Strategy Guide'. No indication of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This appears to be just badly-sourced WP:FANCRUFT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly passes WP:GNG because it concerns sourced content from reliable secondary sources as any honest check of Google News and Google Books will reveal. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a legitimate reason for deletion and certainly when not true. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the "Official" Game & Strategy Guides (the only sources appearing to give "significant coverage") are not "independent of the subject", so WP:GNG is not met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the significant and independent coverage in IGN and elsewhere unquestionably meets the GNG. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and protected redirect to Resident Evil. This is a mixture of fancruft & gameguide together, neither of which have any place here. Eusebeus (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when not true. A list of items found in over a half dozen games, several films, and even as replicas that is discussed in an analytical fashion clearly has a place on the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Article is in the process of being improved to take into account the reception of these creatures as well as their use outside of the games in films and I hope to add additional information on development as well (I have litterally scores of magazines, i.e. reliable secondary sources, I can comb through). I am focused on grading midterms this weekend, but would appreciate being able to return to the article in short order. Without ANY doubt this article can be improved further and has real potential for being a Good or even Featured list due to the available sources. Thus, per WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline, we would greatly appreciate having a a real chance of doing whatever we can to continue to improve it (I reckon within a month or so, this will be significantly improved to that end). I hope that my colleagues are considerate to allow for this opportunity that will take more than a week and that as volunteers we should not feel overly rushed to do, but that will indeed happen. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Cmt this piece of garbage has been here for almost four years, and there is still not a single reliable source independent of the subject that discusses this list at all, let alone one that would establish encyclopedic notability (independent from the game itself) for what is currently an unholy mess of original research and opinion unbacked by sources. (Just one assertion from the article --"the spider-based BOWs developed in the Umbrella Management Training Facility were known as Giant Spiders. They are similar to the Web Spinners. The term "Giant Spider" is also used for the infected spiders in Raccoon City that are not BOWs, but were infected by the viral outbreak." Well, sez who? And what independent source cares? So far, none. Same goes for almost every other entry.) So there are enormous doubts as to its improvability. I'm convinced it is impossible to bring this up to a minimal passing standard. Request for more time denied. Sincerely and with the utmost respect.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the obvious dishonesty in the above IP's comment (the article not only contains several reliable sources independent of the subject that discusses the list, more are mentioned in this discussion, and any honest Google Search uncovers even more), the above comment was made by an IP who's sole AfD edit ever is to this AfD, i.e. it is either a single-purpose IP or someone's sock IP. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd appreciate you strike your allegation of lying just as your last rather unhinged comment was removed on your behalf [2]. Happy editing! Sincerely.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, i see you've reinserted your earlier allegation of lying and deceit that was earlier removed [3]. Way to walk it like you talk it. I'm especially touched that you had a 7 month old diff on hand in which i callously and viciously wrote "nyah, nyah, nyah" to demonstrate that, obviously, I'm a liar who doesn't understand very much. Well played sir. Have a great day! Sincerely.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it's like this, when I am actually looking for and finding sources and and actually incorporating them into the article, it gets really old having to then argue with those who are indeed making false claims. If you simply said, "I don't personally believe Wikipedia should include character lists and instead focus more effort on the main articles", okay fine. Yes, that is an "I don't like it," but so be it. Aggresively and incorrectly declaring that no sources exist here is just not true. Reliable sites like IGN do indeed features lists of these characters in a reception-esque fashion. Those are reliable secondary sources. You are either ignoring them altogether or are not familiar enough with them to recognize that they do indeed count as reliable sources. Sure the article has existed for a long time in a less than stellar state. Sure many of the current sources are from published reliable primary sources, but in but minutes I found and added material on their use in films, as toys, and their reception to expand the article and what I did, surely others could have did as I found these sources on just Google News and Google Books, i.e. I did not have to scour the earth to find them. It would be ridiculous to expect me or anyone who is actually trying to improve the article rather than just comment in the discussion to let slide factually inaccurate comments. We can perhaps have a reasoned debate on scope of coverage here, but the idea that it is not covered in any reliable secondary sources in just not true and as such how else can someone interpret a statement to that effect? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - but trim it way back to only significant, notable characters/creatures, the article as it stands now is far too large. Resident Evil is a significant, notable franchise and a list of significant characters or creatures is large enough that it might not fit in the main article. Notability is established by the existence of published works on this topic. That does not mean every monster that ever appears needs documenting here, though. (For that there are other wikis) ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and spin out Tyrant Of all the characters in that article that don't already have an article, the Tyrant has the best shot and a great deal of reception. Just a matter of someone actually developing an article on the subject. As Blake said though, a redirect would be preferable over a delete as it would make salvaging anything for future articles easier if more reception turns up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2009 (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.