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.
I've recently
tried to expand this article as much as possible, and in doing so have confirmed that it does not have enough
sources to demonstrate
notability. Only 6 of the 24 sections within the article have any commentary on the characters' development (mostly only one or two sentences)—the other 18 sections consist entirely of plot information, violating
WP:VGSCOPE #5 and #6. Most of the necessary information is already included in
Development of Red Dead Redemption. A
similar nomination last month led to redirects to the relevant article (in this case, Red Dead Redemption), which is always an option, but honestly I think deletion here is justified. –
Rhain☔06:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: I don't think any of those sources demonstrate notability per
WP:LISTN. The first two sources are just lists of characters in this game who returned for the prequel. The third source is literally just a story recap. The final two are not written about this game. And all of these sources are written in the context of Red Dead Redemption 2, not this game; the characters do not
inherit notability. Not to mention that the sources could only be used to cite story elements (i.e.
WP:GAMECRUFT), not development and reception information. I'd also argue that
WP:PRESERVE is not a relevant policy here since, as mentioned in the nomination, I've made attempts to expand the article as much as possible. –
Rhain☔14:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, sourcing provided above only contributed to notability for the second game, this list does not pass LISTN per NOTINHERITED. The article also fails
WP:PLOT, since it is written from an entirely in-universe point of view.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
23:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEP References have been found. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this, so it passes the general notability guidelines. It doesn't have to be considered a list article, you could remove the "list of" from the title, and it'd still be notable just any regular article based on passing the GNG.
DreamFocus23:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There are references in the article. I was mostly referring to the coverage Andrew🐉 found and posted above. Did you click any of those links?
DreamFocus05:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dream Focus: I'm aware of the references in the article, as I added them, but only five are used outside of the opening two sections (which are
copied from
elsewhere anyway). Yes, I did click Andrew's links; did you read any of my responses? All of the sources only contribute notability to the second game, not this one: the first two sources are lists of characters who returned for the prequel, the third is just a
story recap, and the last two aren't even relevant to this game. And none of them would change the fact that the article is just a massive retelling of the game's plot. –
Rhain☔06:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dream Focus: I know, but that article only demonstrates notability in context of the second game. It's also not very "significant coverage", nor is it considered a
reliable source. If you have found other articles that give enough information to warrant notability, please feel free to share, but in its current state, the article currently consists of
WP:GAMECRUFT. If all of the excessive
plot information was removed, the article would consist of 400 words, 300 of which are copied from
Development of Red Dead Redemption. The remaining 100 words can be moved across. –
Rhain☔08:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It shows information of the characters in the first game also. That much written about each character is in fact quite "significant coverage". Also thegamer meets all requirements for a reliable source, it just hasn't been discussed and added yet. I have started a discussion about it at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#THEGAMER. And this isn't a merge discussion its a deletion discussion.
DreamFocus13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dream Focus: I know, but the whole article only exists in the context of the second game, not the notability of the first game’s characters—they do not
inherit notability. I appreciate you starting the discussion, but even if the site is deemed reliable, it’s still only one source. And what will it be used to cite? The fact that John Marston returned in Red Dead Redemption 2? –
Rhain☔14:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge: Maybe the characters from the second game are notable, but that doesn't transfer to the first game's characters. A lot of these sources are only talking about them in the context of the second game. It's normal for some games to experience a breakthrough on their sequel, and with it the characters. As a suggestion, you could write a short section about the non-notable story elements in the first game, and have that section link to the more notable story elements from the second game.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I was able to find this coverage on the topic:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7]. There is also the offical guide which may help with sourcing which can be seen here
[8]. There is probably more coverage to be found in print magazines considering the game was released in 2010. Regards
Spy-cicle💥 Talk?14:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Same problems as with Andrew's sources above. #2, #4, #5 are articles about carryovers from RDR to RDR2, of which #2 is based on then-rumours; #1, #3, #8 are in-universe summaries; #6 is reception, in which characters are just lightly discussed; and #7 is an unrelated analysis. The same arguments from above apply; the sources given for this game are insufficient to retain a separate list of this kind. This is different from the list about RDR2's characters, as it includes, among many other things, plenty of development content.
IceWelder [
✉]
19:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Red Dead Redemption The above sources do provide some notability (even if some are about characters returning in the prequel) but not enough for a standalone list.
Redirects are cheap there is no inherrant disadvantage to having one and if in the future someone is able to find in-depth coverage of these characters (in old print magazine or retrospectives) it can be put back into mainspace.
IceWelder,
CR4ZE Would you considering changing your !votes to redirects as opposed to outright deletion? Regards
Spy-cicle💥 Talk?14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Spy-cicle: This game came out nearly 10 years ago (and I mean, its 10-year anniversary is next week!) so I doubt that if the sourcing hasn't existed for the past decade, it's then suddenly going to appear somewhere in the future. Having said that, I won't change my vote per se, but I'm not opposed to a redirect page at all. — CR4ZE(
T •
C)14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I'd rather not. From my experience, articles of this origin are often the target of anonymous users that continuously re-create the list, claiming that it was "valuable Wiki-content", although it is clearly not. This is results in unnecessary standoffs between IPs and maintainers (as was the case several times for a lists of radio stations in various GTA games). By default, therefore, I favour deletion, so that, if required, a clean, historyless redirect could be created thereafter. That said, I am not opposed to having a redirect in general, but I wouldn't change my vote just to keep the current history. Also note that the main Red Dead Redemption articles does not include a list of characters, making a redirect by that name misleading.
IceWelder [
✉]
14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree. This is actually the reason I've not suggested redirection; if the redirect exists, a new or IP editor is bound to come along and recreate the list entirely of plot summaries. I wasn't entirely happy with how the
GTA characters AfD went this way, because if the sourcing still doesn't exist for 15–19 year old games, it almost certainly never will. I think the same applies here. If new sources pop up, they can be added to the
game page and/or
development article. –
Rhain☔23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I've pondered this for a while and was even entertaining the idea of a new article,
List of Red Dead characters, and merging both this andList of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters together. However, it's clear as
Rhain has stated above that they are very different lists, and there's no notable content here that couldn't very easily be integrated in the Red Dead Redemption or
John Marston articles—of which, any such content already has been. The sourcing—even that provided by
Andrew Davidson and
Spy-cicle above—simply doesn't exist for this article to stand on its own two feet; if it was anywhere near the quality of the RDR2 characters article, my opinion would be very different. — CR4ZE(
T •
C)13:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, given Rhain's editing history and focus, I have no doubt when they say that sources are lacking and do not establish notability. If they were there, this would be at FLC already.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
16:25, 11 May 2020 (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.
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.
I've recently
tried to expand this article as much as possible, and in doing so have confirmed that it does not have enough
sources to demonstrate
notability. Only 6 of the 24 sections within the article have any commentary on the characters' development (mostly only one or two sentences)—the other 18 sections consist entirely of plot information, violating
WP:VGSCOPE #5 and #6. Most of the necessary information is already included in
Development of Red Dead Redemption. A
similar nomination last month led to redirects to the relevant article (in this case, Red Dead Redemption), which is always an option, but honestly I think deletion here is justified. –
Rhain☔06:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: I don't think any of those sources demonstrate notability per
WP:LISTN. The first two sources are just lists of characters in this game who returned for the prequel. The third source is literally just a story recap. The final two are not written about this game. And all of these sources are written in the context of Red Dead Redemption 2, not this game; the characters do not
inherit notability. Not to mention that the sources could only be used to cite story elements (i.e.
WP:GAMECRUFT), not development and reception information. I'd also argue that
WP:PRESERVE is not a relevant policy here since, as mentioned in the nomination, I've made attempts to expand the article as much as possible. –
Rhain☔14:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, sourcing provided above only contributed to notability for the second game, this list does not pass LISTN per NOTINHERITED. The article also fails
WP:PLOT, since it is written from an entirely in-universe point of view.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
23:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)reply
KEEP References have been found. Reliable sources give significant coverage to this, so it passes the general notability guidelines. It doesn't have to be considered a list article, you could remove the "list of" from the title, and it'd still be notable just any regular article based on passing the GNG.
DreamFocus23:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)reply
There are references in the article. I was mostly referring to the coverage Andrew🐉 found and posted above. Did you click any of those links?
DreamFocus05:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dream Focus: I'm aware of the references in the article, as I added them, but only five are used outside of the opening two sections (which are
copied from
elsewhere anyway). Yes, I did click Andrew's links; did you read any of my responses? All of the sources only contribute notability to the second game, not this one: the first two sources are lists of characters who returned for the prequel, the third is just a
story recap, and the last two aren't even relevant to this game. And none of them would change the fact that the article is just a massive retelling of the game's plot. –
Rhain☔06:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dream Focus: I know, but that article only demonstrates notability in context of the second game. It's also not very "significant coverage", nor is it considered a
reliable source. If you have found other articles that give enough information to warrant notability, please feel free to share, but in its current state, the article currently consists of
WP:GAMECRUFT. If all of the excessive
plot information was removed, the article would consist of 400 words, 300 of which are copied from
Development of Red Dead Redemption. The remaining 100 words can be moved across. –
Rhain☔08:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
It shows information of the characters in the first game also. That much written about each character is in fact quite "significant coverage". Also thegamer meets all requirements for a reliable source, it just hasn't been discussed and added yet. I have started a discussion about it at
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#THEGAMER. And this isn't a merge discussion its a deletion discussion.
DreamFocus13:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dream Focus: I know, but the whole article only exists in the context of the second game, not the notability of the first game’s characters—they do not
inherit notability. I appreciate you starting the discussion, but even if the site is deemed reliable, it’s still only one source. And what will it be used to cite? The fact that John Marston returned in Red Dead Redemption 2? –
Rhain☔14:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge: Maybe the characters from the second game are notable, but that doesn't transfer to the first game's characters. A lot of these sources are only talking about them in the context of the second game. It's normal for some games to experience a breakthrough on their sequel, and with it the characters. As a suggestion, you could write a short section about the non-notable story elements in the first game, and have that section link to the more notable story elements from the second game.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
20:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I was able to find this coverage on the topic:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7]. There is also the offical guide which may help with sourcing which can be seen here
[8]. There is probably more coverage to be found in print magazines considering the game was released in 2010. Regards
Spy-cicle💥 Talk?14:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Same problems as with Andrew's sources above. #2, #4, #5 are articles about carryovers from RDR to RDR2, of which #2 is based on then-rumours; #1, #3, #8 are in-universe summaries; #6 is reception, in which characters are just lightly discussed; and #7 is an unrelated analysis. The same arguments from above apply; the sources given for this game are insufficient to retain a separate list of this kind. This is different from the list about RDR2's characters, as it includes, among many other things, plenty of development content.
IceWelder [
✉]
19:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Red Dead Redemption The above sources do provide some notability (even if some are about characters returning in the prequel) but not enough for a standalone list.
Redirects are cheap there is no inherrant disadvantage to having one and if in the future someone is able to find in-depth coverage of these characters (in old print magazine or retrospectives) it can be put back into mainspace.
IceWelder,
CR4ZE Would you considering changing your !votes to redirects as opposed to outright deletion? Regards
Spy-cicle💥 Talk?14:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Spy-cicle: This game came out nearly 10 years ago (and I mean, its 10-year anniversary is next week!) so I doubt that if the sourcing hasn't existed for the past decade, it's then suddenly going to appear somewhere in the future. Having said that, I won't change my vote per se, but I'm not opposed to a redirect page at all. — CR4ZE(
T •
C)14:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) I'd rather not. From my experience, articles of this origin are often the target of anonymous users that continuously re-create the list, claiming that it was "valuable Wiki-content", although it is clearly not. This is results in unnecessary standoffs between IPs and maintainers (as was the case several times for a lists of radio stations in various GTA games). By default, therefore, I favour deletion, so that, if required, a clean, historyless redirect could be created thereafter. That said, I am not opposed to having a redirect in general, but I wouldn't change my vote just to keep the current history. Also note that the main Red Dead Redemption articles does not include a list of characters, making a redirect by that name misleading.
IceWelder [
✉]
14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree. This is actually the reason I've not suggested redirection; if the redirect exists, a new or IP editor is bound to come along and recreate the list entirely of plot summaries. I wasn't entirely happy with how the
GTA characters AfD went this way, because if the sourcing still doesn't exist for 15–19 year old games, it almost certainly never will. I think the same applies here. If new sources pop up, they can be added to the
game page and/or
development article. –
Rhain☔23:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: I've pondered this for a while and was even entertaining the idea of a new article,
List of Red Dead characters, and merging both this andList of Red Dead Redemption 2 characters together. However, it's clear as
Rhain has stated above that they are very different lists, and there's no notable content here that couldn't very easily be integrated in the Red Dead Redemption or
John Marston articles—of which, any such content already has been. The sourcing—even that provided by
Andrew Davidson and
Spy-cicle above—simply doesn't exist for this article to stand on its own two feet; if it was anywhere near the quality of the RDR2 characters article, my opinion would be very different. — CR4ZE(
T •
C)13:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, given Rhain's editing history and focus, I have no doubt when they say that sources are lacking and do not establish notability. If they were there, this would be at FLC already.
Axem Titanium (
talk)
16:25, 11 May 2020 (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.