Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Hale (character)

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. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hale (character)

This character does not establish notability independent of the Resistance: Fall of Man series through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the plot sections in the main articles are enough coverage. TTN (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jeremiah (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I wish I could simply say contra nom and let it go at that, for every statement in the nom is wrong. In this case there are three references , thus showing notability. The content is taken from a RS, the works being discussed, so it's not OR. It's not just plot, since it shows the development during the series; as for unnecessary plot details, the thing to do is to edit it, with discussion on the talk page--removing excess from the article is no part of what we should be doing here. And, so far from "no assertion for current improvement" there's a tag on the article that it needs to be brought up to date--I suppose from additional versions of the game. DGG (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under "Appearances", the sections "Resistance: Fall of Man" and "Resistance 2" are pure plot summary. I had expected the "Marketing" section to be an explanation of how the character was marketed by Insomniac, but it seems that it's plot summary again. The "Personality" section is obviously original research and speculation. ("Hale seems to be...like a very quiet and withdrawn person", "The reason...could be because of several reasons" That's the entire body of the article, so how can you claim that "Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details" is an incorrect statement? It looks to me like a very accurate assessment. As to your assertion of notability from the three references provided, the first links to a Wikipedia page and claims Insomniac as the publisher. I'm not sure what that's trying to do, but it's either unreliable or non-independent, depending on which one of those two is correct. The second is published by SCE and is also not independent. The third appears to be a trailer for the game—not independent. None of those references exhibit notability. Pagra shtak 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. Suggesting the mere existence of 'references' demonstrates notability is a salutary gesture of optimism, but not a serious argument. Eusebeus (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rewrite the article. /Poxnar (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To rewrite the article, we must have reliable sources that are independent (not affiliated with the developers and publishers, etc.) Can you provide these sources? Pagra shtak 18:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure where you got that idea, but you're wrong. Primary sources cannot be used to show notability, but they certainly can be used as source material for writing an article. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But when there are no secondary sources to establish notability, there's no point relying on primary sources to write an article because it will be deleted. Primary sources can be used to supplement secondary ones, but a topic must first be notable. -- Sabre (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's the point I was trying to make. The AFD nomination is based on a supposed lack of secondary sources, and I was merely pointing out that "rewrite the article" does not address that concern. My point stands that we must have reliable secondary sources for a successful rewrite of the article that addresses the concerns of the nominator. Pagra shtak 00:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is starting to make improvements now, people are adding more "independent references" and making it overall better. If we give it some time, the article will surely be better. It does not have to be deleted, just improved. /Poxnar (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully agreed with DGG. The rationale for deletion seems to just be downright incorrect.--Koji† 00:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not been the subject of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources (WP:N). The fictional details should be included in a brief plot summary on the game's article. The Ted Price interview provides a small amount of out-of-universe information, again nothing that can't be included in the parent article. Marasmusine (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there do seem to besome sources now. DGG (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine for verifiability, but still unsatisfactory for notability. The PSM profile is at least more than one paragraph, but it is an in-universe regurgitation of officially released information. Marasmusine (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The revision nominated was at least 99% in-universe information. The two and a half sentences (is that a whole one in the Development section?) added since then don't change anything. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG says it well. It is unfortunate that it is so plot-heavy, but I think this is best dealt with carrots rather than sticks. Being named as one of the top 3 characters for PS3 suggests strongly this can be done - article quality is no gorunds for deletion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Resistance: Fall of Man for the time being, or possibly a list of characters article - however, I would say if there's any evidence of at least a third game in the series, make a series article and move there (along with info from R:FoM). As a standalone article, there's not enough to support it. --MASEM 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third game, though Hale apparently isn't in it. ~Snapper T o 23:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has been treated as a notable character by some sources and there is too much content here to merge with the main article. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks to be an exceptional video game character article where there are reliable third-party sources on it, providing information about its reception and development (e.g.: top 5 playstation characters). I'm optimistic enough to believe that further sources can be found to support an article. But I don't personally know this character, so I might be wrong. And if I am wrong, a merge would be an appropriate compromise -- and can be suggested at the article talk page. Randomran (talk) 04:33, 11 November 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.