Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Need for Speed characters

List of Need for Speed characters

A list of characters from a video game, with no sources other than a couple of bits of speculation from a fan forum. I'd dispute these being characters per se, actually, they don't seem to have much actual characterisation. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Related wikipedia articles are sources. How can you say they aren't characters? What are they then? --MrStalker ^talk 09:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't use another Wikipedia article as a source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 11:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Really? I can't find that paragraph. Can you please point me to it? --MrStalker ^talk 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - What are they then? - Mostly, from the descriptions, the video-game equivalents of the Microsoft Office Talking Paper Clip. --Calton | Talk 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ~~O'rly? That's just ignorant. --MrStalker ^talk 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
        Impressive and devastating use of rhetoric, there. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. --MrStalker ^talk 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a useful page. It doesn't need too many references. I really don't see what the problem is with this article.Darkcraft 11:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being useful is not a reason to keep an article. Epbr123 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better question: useful for what, exactly? And why doesn't it need references? --Calton | Talk 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said, most of the facts in there don't require references. Nobody is going to challenge 'Samantha drives a Honda Civic Si Coupe' or any of the many similar facts. I would find this article helpful if I were into Need for Speed, and I wanted to find out more about the characters. You should not decide to delete an article just because it doesn't have enough information yet, which seems to be what some of you are saying. The nomination in the first place seems to be baseless, without any proper reasons for deletion.Darkcraft 14:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So whether something is challengeable is the standard for requiring refs? But more to the point, how do you know, to use your example, it's a Honda Civic Si Coupe? And no, it's not a question of whether it "has enough information yet", it's whether that information is worth anything and/or whether that missing, actually reliable, information can POSSIBLY be obtained. --Calton | Talk 16:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you only need references for facts that are likely to be challenged. We aren't supposed to reference everything on Wikipedia because, well, it would just be ridiculous. Just because an article isn't good yet, that does not mean it should be deleted. Give it a chance to improve or we will never find out.Darkcraft 13:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Epbr123 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not just O.R. by someone who pauses the game to take notes, but one of those "buy-the-product" articles. Did the author need, or get, permission to do the "motion capture" pictures? If you want to meet the characters, drive around and let them talk to you. Mandsford 12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And like he said, I'm not seeing anything resembling actual characterization.
Strongest Keep This article can be improved. I dont see any reason why it has to be deleted. --SkyWalker 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a fact-based rather than a faith-based reason? --Calton | Talk 16:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of fact do you need?. Why not check this category to see how many character list are available for all other game Category:Lists of video game characters?. Why cant need for speed have its own article?.--SkyWalker 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of fact do you need? I dunno, maybe for This article can be improved - which, unless you offer something resembling evidence and not handwaving, constitutes an article of faith and not an actual argument. And the last two sentences are rebutted by this page. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral No notability for any of these characters is established, but they do use real world actors to play these lead character roles. Corpx 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list of fictional characters from a well-known series. Sources aren't needed.CheckeredFlag200 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC) And besides, look. If this is deleted, every single character list page on Wikipedia will be deleted. So deleting this page will be COMPLETELY pointless.CheckeredFlag200 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a particularly bad version of the old WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about THAT argument. The page doesn't need sources, as ALL the information is covered in the Need For Speed series. Besides, there are several Wikipedia articles which are similar to this which do not have sources (e.g. List of Backyard Kids).71.92.70.77 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be 99%+ Original Research - fchd 07:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little OR in this, almost everything in the article is explicitly stated in the games.Darkcraft 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator (JzG). --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So...delete because the article doesn't have sources? That isn't a reason for deletion.Darkcraft 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, per WP:NOR. No sources is the same as original research. --MrStalker ^talk 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in particular delete because we have an article Need for Speed that covers this subject quite well. Spending effort describing elements that amount to avatars of the software, and have no independent verification, seems unnecessary. If you play the game you will encounter these character. If you do not, you will not, and the cost to you of not knowing about them is zero. They are only relevant if you play the game, and if the producers of the game have not bothered to produce some kind of manual this encyclopedia is not the site to use to fill in the gaps. Write it up on your blog. --Tony Sidaway 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Here is an argument which shows that it should keep. Aren't there Wikipedians (like me) around who want to know about the characters without getting all the actual games to learn information about them? Information for free is better than getting all the games for at least $500.131.215.108.218 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]