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 redirect to Saints Row, leaving open the option to merge sourced content from the history to that or another article, insofar as such a merge is supported by consensus. We have consensus here that this does not deserve an article of its own, but several people have expressed the opinion that a partial merger might be worthwhile.  Sandstein  18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stilwater

Stilwater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Primarily non-notable fictional location (a single ref is a developer's blog, this information is more likely useful in a development section for either "Saints Row"/"Saints Row 2". Explicity layout of the city is unnecessary, and falls in WP:GAMEGUIDE. High-level details of city can be integrated into main game articles as needed. MASEM 12:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge to Saints Row or Saints Row 2. Way too much detail about a fictional city in a computer game. JIP | Talk 12:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is best to keep. As both Saint Row and Saint Row 2 takes place at the same location. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Saints Row — Lack of verifiable, third-party sources and fails the general notability guideline. The main problem lies in that there are lacks any extensive outside coverage — something that the blog, verifiable or not, does not address. MuZemike (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to coverage in multiple verifiable third-party sources which demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those sources talk about Stilwater - they refer to the name of the city as to establish the setting. I've played the first and recognize that there is little that can actually be said about the city that doesn't become a fiction tourist guide or gameguide. --MASEM 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • They verify it in enough of a manner that suggests we can and should cover it somehow or other, i.e. I don't see any pressing need to redlink the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can be covered in Saints Row, the idea shouldn't be buried and that article can have a Setting section using an {{anchor}} tag, with a redirect from Stilwater to there, in order to retain high-level information about the city. But the news.google.com articles don't support any significant details on the reasoning or creative aspect of the city to warrant much more discussion; that's only supported by the one developer blog that's already sourced, and that doesn't given significance. What's in that blog can be used to build up a development section in either game's article, but alone is not sufficient for an article. --MASEM 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Saints Row: Without substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, this article can't meet the general notability guideline, let alone its burden of proof in our verifiability policy. The only coverage in reliable third-party sources is trivial, mentioning the name of the location, but not offering any meaningful facts that we can verify. Randomran (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not notable. No reliable third-party source explicitly discusses the subject in detail, thereby showing that there is no significant or substantial coverage per WP:GNG and WP:NOBJ. Article's nature is more of a virtual travel guide than one discussing conceptualization and development of the virtual setting, hence a violation of WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:VG/GL. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cull, merge and redirect - the subject's notability is painfully questionable and its article is far too over-detailed for an encyclopedia article on such a subject. However, it may be more prudent to cut the article down to size, cleaning out all that excessive detail and other fancruft so we're left with something actually useful for readers who haven't played the game before merging into the series article. The location should be covered in some small and concise amount in either the series article in setting sections of the two games it appears in. Such information is useful to the comprehensiveness of the other articles as it provides context to readers for the game's setting. It just shouldn't have a separate article; redistributing the information and redirecting to the series article seems like the best way to me.-- Sabre (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that LGRdC has added some references with comments about the city (see this diff for example). While these barely make this notable, we still have the issue that the content of this article falls somewhere between a fictional travel guide and a game guide, both which are details that WP does not cover. These points can be added to either game article with a more succinct version of the city, but a full article is still not justified with these references. --MASEM 23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That strikes me though as cause for merging and redirecting without deletion. For what it's worth, I'm not really persuaded with the vocal minority argument that we shouldn't be a game guide. Given all the editors who create and work on those kinds of articles and all the hits they get, as long as they are verifiable, I don't really see why not to cover them or that the claim that we shouldn't are really consistent with what the community wants in practice. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's why I'm still saying that its appropriate to merge (however, its up to an admin to close this in some fashion, I can't since I'm involved). We've been through the issue of being a game guide numerous times already through WT:VG and other AFDs, and consensus keeps showing that we do not include content that is only useful to someone playing the game, even if it is verifible, as it falls under the general principles of WP:NOT. --MASEM 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not persuaded of that because in those discussions the same editors which are far less numerous than those who create and work on the articles or who read them make that case. And who knows, maybe sooner or later they too will change their mind or be outvoiced. I see no reason not to keep ideas out there for others to pick up on. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it's not just video game editors, it's a long standing policy that WP does not tell people this level of detail. An encyclopedia is not the same as a textbook or guidebook for any topic regardless of how else the content meets WP's policies - game guides fall into these. This information can be located in a general game wiki, but not on Wikipedia. --MASEM 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • We're more than a regular encyclopedia though and have the disc space and interest to cover this kind of material in a manner that published encyclopedias reasonably could not. It may be somehow consistent with the ever disputed and evolving policies, but it's also a long-standing practice of editors to create and work on such articles and so long as what they write is true, then I say let them as doing so in spinoff and sub-articles only makes us that much more relevant, useful, valuable, etc. of a comprehensive reference guide. An alternate solution could be more vigorously linking ro soft rediecting to other wikis. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I completely agree on the later (and thus expect the extra information here to be found in some Saints Row wiki - I don't know if one exists, but its worthwhile there). However, be aware that the goals of an encyclopedia and the goals of a reference guide are two very different things, and we've long determined that we're the encyclopedia route. --MASEM 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I find that tables or lists of information on video games are to those articles what the table of elements is to an article on elements or a list of Academy Award winners is to an article of the Academy Awards. I am not suggesting that these fictional lists are necessarily as notable as the real world examples, but that they are sufficiently notable by their own measurement to be needed for fully understanding these subjects, too and anyone who is likely to click on them will benefit from comparing and contrasting that kind of information with other similar articles. If people use an encyclopedia for research and to evaluate information, there's something to be learned by examining one fictional location from another, i.e. it reveals something to the readers/researchers about how video games present locations differently and again so long as it is verifiable then there's something to be learned there too as not every video game is covered in strategy guides and nor does every game review specifically mention the locations. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or merge or redirect to Saints Row, depending on the subject's notability (which I do not wish to take the time to investigate right now). I see no good reason to delete when an appropriate and obvious redirect target exists. DHowell (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cull, merge and redirect per Sabre. No sign that this topic could support its own article (and no, a two-sentence Reception section and a link to Google doesn't cut it for me). Agree with nom that the majority of this current article is not suitable for wikipedia (WP:NOT), so that's where the culling comes in. – sgeureka t•c 06:10, 14 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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stilwater
No tags for this post.