Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementine (The Walking Dead)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Keep (NAC) Rotten regard 20:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine (The Walking Dead)

edit
Clementine (The Walking Dead) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely trivial and unnotable. No independent references. Barsoomian (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the article right now... Be patient... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 18:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have referenced the article well for it to be verifiable and a well-recieved character of the The Walking Dead series... Now obviously, we will require something called "time" and occasional help from other members who are well-versed in The Walking Dead universe to develop this article into a stronger one... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the references cited are about the game itself. They mention the character in passing. It remains a trivial and unnotable subject for a stand-alone article. Should be no more than a paragraph in the article about the game. Barsoomian (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't had that sort of intention... I mentioned above that "we will require occasional help from other members who are well-versed in The Walking Dead universe to develop this article into a stronger one..."... I had good intentions... I had put an Template:under construction before this was nominated for deletion... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 07:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also added it to the Walking Dead navbox. If you hadn't insisted on awarding it that importance I would not have cared. If it isn't ready then don't go linking it around. 90% of the article is in-universe, description of gameplay. The citations are all general reviews of the game, with a few words about the character. All of them duplicating the references in Lee Everett. And then you canvassed about 10 editors to try to stack the AfD. Barsoomian (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Character is notable and verifiable so it can't be deleted... If you can move this article into a "Characters in..." then I am okay with it... But you can't "delete" it because the character is notable and verifiable... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notable is your opinion, not a fact. Lots of things are verifiable and trivial. Means nothing. Barsoomian (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- but disclaimer is that I was one of those FF canvassed, though I've never worked on this article (But did the main game and Lee Everett the game's protagonist). The game is extremely notable and while that doesn't mean notability extends to the character, Clementine is a significant element of the game. Additionally, just tonight, this role won for best female performs at the Spike Video Game awards ([3]). Between what's already here, this new information, and the existing analysis already in the main game article that can be reused here (such as a series of articles from Giant Bomb in discussions with the game developers about their writing choices and thus the importance of Clemenetine), I'm pretty confident the character is notable. --MASEM (t) 07:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clementine is a character in the game alone. She does not appear in any of the other WD media. She has no existence outside one game and no need for a separate article. A section of the game article is more appropriate. Further, now I've looked at Lee Everett, I see that every single reference cited in the Clementine aricle was used in that. So if not with the game, Clementine could me merged with Lee Everett to make a "Characters in ..." article. Barsoomian (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all of Ugly Betty character articles have no references at all and not even notable... And they don't appear outside TV series... Should we delete them all too...? At least this main character is award-winning, notable and properly referenced... However, I have two problems about the proposal to merge and make a "Characters in..." article... (1) we won't be able to stress on the positive critical reception they received... (2) the "characters in..." would be huge because there are all lot of secondary characters in game... We rather have two mid-length articles for the primary notable characters...? No? And also you should change your vote from "Delete" to "Merge" or "Move"... FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 12:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid reason to keep an article. And just saying over and over that it's "notable" without proof is just noise. A character in one game who has not one single reference that is primarily about it is not notable. Barsoomian (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you think is best. I am out of this now and going to contribute in some other side of Wikipedia. FudgeFury(talk|sign|contribs) 14:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm working in CRYSTAL territory, but there has been a second "season" announced for this game, and certainly will involve more Clementine. I would agree that probably in the long run it might be better to talk about Lee and Clementine in the current game article, but that's not due to the fact that these two characters are individually notable per the GNG. I suspect FF borrowed the sources from Lee to make this article (the synopsis is near the same), so of course the sourcing will be similar, but there's more that can be added. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, by the way, the claim that just being a character in only one game and thus not deserving of an article is patently false. Nor is the claim that we need a reliable source entirely about the character. All we need is significant coverage in secondary sources, and evidence for that is there - it just needs time to flesh out. --MASEM (t) 14:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It just needs time to flesh out", which means this article is too soon and needs to begin as a "List of characters in..." — WylieCoyote 15:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"All we need is significant coverage in secondary sources." Come back when there is. Barsoomian (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should it have began in the main game article or a separate list of characters? Sure, I would have likely done that myself. But it was created before then, and so the immediate push to delete is quiet improper since some notability has been shown. AFD is not article improvement. --MASEM (t) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating this for deletion the second it was created was very premature. The user is working on it, and already has very good sources in it. If they manage to find more, this could be a nice article. Let the user work on it and see what happens. When the time comes, bring it among yourselves whether or not it looks good and decide without bringing it to AfD. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:
"For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately."
Articles needing redirection do not need to be at AfD... Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominating an article for deletion within a few minutes of its creation when it has an under-construction template is disruption. Videogames are now a bigger business than movies and so the lead characters in major productions should be given some respect. The worst case would be merger into the main article about the game and so deletion is never a sensible option in such cases. Warden (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing me of "disruption" for not showing the proper "respect" to video games is highly offensive, and highly stupid, and you also harrassed me on my talk page. The ONLY reason I responded to this article was that that had been linked into a major template, by the creator two minutes after he began it. If it wasn't ready to be critiqued, he should have worked on it for a while before making a big splash and making it appear on dozens of pages that include the navbox. And an AFD runs for at least a week, it's still there now, but you act as if I had somehow actually already deleted the article stillborn. Barsoomian (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is disruptive to take newly created articles - under 20 minutes from creation - and AFD them when they don't otherwise fail the CSD criteria. Because there is no DEADLINE, there is no need to rush to remove material that is otherwise not patently false nor potentially a legal problem for WP. Maintenance tag it, sure, or come back after a few days and re-evaluate it, but not 20 minutes from creation. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting pretty sick of you and other fans attacking me over and over here and on my talk page. Barsoomian (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was also canvassed, so I'm not going to !vote, but I will say that if this article is not kept, it could be merged into the video game article. BOZ (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see mentions of her a lot, and not just passively. People state her importance in the game and go into detail why. [4] Many sources found, many more out there, altogether I say that proves she is notable enough to have her own article. Dream Focus 22:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please note that I was canvassed on my talk page. That being said, however, I do believe this article should be kept. If it were a straight plot description with no outside sources I'd argue for a redirect, but this article has plenty of verifiable reliable outside sources, and the article goes into more detail than just plot, i.e. the conception, reception and awards sections. It also appears to be early in the life of this article, so it appears it will only improve from here. — Hunter Kahn 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with an advisory note that I was canvassed (please don't do that). The sources are adequate for both reception and creation, and likely the only reason why it uses the same sources is because it borrowed from the Lee article for referencing. In my search, Clementine has had plenty of coverage; I still have to cite an episode of Playing Dead that adds further information about her creation. Needless to say, there exists plenty of content on the character, which will likely grow with her voice actress' recent award. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she and Lee are the two stars of the game which became GOTY at the VGAs. Numerous websites praise her like IGN and Gamespot, and forums love her as well. She is known just as well as "T-Dog" for God's sakes and he has a page.Jokersflame (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Walking Dead, a "list of characters in...". Although it was prematurely nominated, it's now been two days and it still doesn't have any independent references that show evidence of notability. Sure, the existing references does mention her (as you'd expect when she appears to be a central part of the game), but that does not constitute notability by itself. Bjelleklang - talk 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does. Notability doesn't require that the references directly address the topic as their main subject, and there are many independent available sources that cover her with more than in-passing mentions. Diego (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a quick Google search ended up with this article: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/clementine-gamings-cutest-shotgun-on-the-wall
Basically, I do consider this to have in this case some explicitly independent notability where this character is being singled out. As for if this one article is sufficient to notability, that can be defended separately, but "doesn't have any independent references" is simply a flat out false statement as this article I've dug up clearly establishes that kind of reference you claim doesn't exist. As for if it is wise to have this as a completely separate article, I'd call that a borderline case and not something clearly defined according to Wikipedia policy. There appears to be sufficient information to make something of an article, although making this a major section in the main article is mostly style over substance here. Another article like this would be nice to have in terms of establishing independent notability. I haven't really dug around that much either to see what else there might be. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a character in the game and is a part of a project to create character pages for characters in said game. If you are going to delete this one, then they should all be deleted/merged. MisterShiney ✉ 16:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so if any one character has an article, every single one must? Notability is not inherited, it must be established for each article. And this "project" of character pages seems to have only one other member. Only the most significant should have a stand alone article. Normally, there would be a section the game article for characters. If that becomes large enough, it would be split to a "Characters in..." page. If an individual character section gets big enough, that is split in turn. This article just skipped all those stages and went from nothing to slightly more than nothing, but in a separate article. And immediately the author started linking his new article into lists when it was just a few lines long. Barsoomian (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand is if this particular character has some sort of independent notability for this article to stand on its own. In other words, are reliable sources talking about this topic in a degree sufficient to actually write a reasonable article and to provide sufficient details to make it something worth reading? I would also argue that a more journalistic "2nd source" is useful for verifiability, as in multiple people talking about the items included into the article. As for if there is just one or multiple characters, that is completely separate as to the notability of the characters themselves as opposed to the game they came from... better yet if those characters are in multiple games and media forms (aka a movie, comic strip, etc.) There appear to be several people mentioning this character independently in what could be called reliable sources about video games. I think that matters a little bit in terms of this discussion about keeping or deleting this article. More importantly, this AfD really didn't need to happen as it really is ending up to be a keep/merge discussion and not a keep/delete. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the AFD was proposed, there wasn't anything in it worth merging. Most of the content has been added since then. (Much copied from other articles on the game though.) Barsoomian (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not surprised when it would seem that you put the article up for deletion, what 15 minutes after it was created? Linking articles is standard practice to prevent them becoming an Orphan. MisterShiney ✉ 07:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, "standard practice" is to link to dozens of pages two minutes after an article is created as a stub. You learn something every day. Barsoomian (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Reason: she's only in 1 game. I spent quite some effort building up Sheva Alomar (who's much more notable than Clementine - lots of reception, merchandise, etc.), but she was in only 1 game, so she's now in the list (as redirected there by me myself). Also, as for the claim of "The game is extremely notable and while that doesn't mean notability extends to the character" - nope, too ("This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale."). Merge wherever. --Niemti (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also: The award fro Melissa Hutchinson should rather belong to the article Melissa Hutchinson. --Niemti (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both points are patently untrue. Being in only one game does not entail that a character not have an article. Otherwise, GLaDOS would not have had an article back when she was only in one game. It's all about the substance and quality of what reliable secondary sources have to say about her, and what the creators say about her history. As for Hutchinson, she won the award for her portrayal of Clementine. Your argument that it shouldn't be on this article fails because the character was mentioned in the award, and is the reason she won the award. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it was still Melissa Hutchinson who won the award, for "Best Performance By a Human Female". Sheva was in one 1 game (and in no other media except some advertising stuff), so there was not much to write about the character other than plot-sperging about this 1 game - now compare with the other RE characters that have their articles, and where their roles in the games are often covered in just few sentence - or even 1 (for example, 3 different games are covered in just 1 sentence in Claire Redfield, and this is all OK). And it's relevant to the article because they're all from zombie games. And Clementine's "Appearances" (plural, about her single appearance) section is an example of what I talk about - this 1 game there is of the size of Claire's 2 big games plus 5 other games. And nothing else can't be possibly written about the character, instead of this, because there is nothing else - just like it was with Sheva Alomar (or actually even less, as Sheva had quite some promo & merch, and with Clementine there is literally NOTHING else). So: Merge Clementine (The Walking Dead) to The Walking Dead (2012 video game) (or to the list of characters, which is yet to be created), make an article Melissa Hutchinson[5]. --Niemti (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clementine was why she won. Additionally, Sheva is not a relevant subject. Additionally, merchandise is an indication of a character being ssold by its creators, not significant notability. The character has a lot of attention; your mistake is that reception and creation info is more important than merchandise and plot info. Literally nothing else is an obvious hyperbole because the character has a healthy amount of content in the two most important sections of the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 01:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely not, Melissa Hutchinson's work "was why she won". If her work was worse, or someone else did the qually good work on the same character, Melissa Hutchinson would not receive this award (which was for her). Looking at the reception section of the character, I don't see this "a lot of attention" - only a praise for her the character as an element of the game in the reviews of the game (I didn't even bother using such stuff for Sheva), with the only exeption of an article "5 Reasons The Walking Dead Game Is Better Than The TV Show" (which is nothing outside of the franchise, and even the quote of "one of the most realistically drawn kids I've encountered in a video game in some time" is not much), plus the award for Melissa Hutchinson (in a separate setion, not less) - and that's all (but the whole article has only 8 refs). Also much of Sheva's merch was licensed, due to popularity. And I don't bring Sheva because someone merged her and now I'm bitter - I merged her (after writing most of content) and here's why. And I did so because the subject turned out to be so limited, precisely due to her single media appearance, with little other to write about it other than some plot sperging which would just duplicate the plot section of the article Resident Evil 5 and still leave the article awkward (and Clementine (The Walking Dead) is awkward as hell, with its "Appearances" about a single appearance, and the separate "Awards" section about a single award, and everything really). --Niemti (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are very wrong. Assuming this article is kept, we'd talk about the award in both places; in the actress' as it mostly her voice work that made the character, but also about the character (or if merged, about the game) since without the writing and direction, the actress wouldn't have had any lines. Praise as a character in a game is very valid reception information -- if the reviews expand on the character and don't just say something short or namedrop. And remember this article's just a week old, and the reception of the game is only just started to be built, but every reliable source I've seen on the game highlights Clementine as a major driver for the player. Now, I'm not against a merge (in fact, the more I think about it, a list may be better) but this is AFD, and the merge discussion can take place in a different venue. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think I'm actually very correct. And we can't "talk about it" in Melissa Hutchinson because it doesn't exist (and nobody even commented on my pointing out that it probabably should be made), with KFM here apparently denying the award actually belongs to her and not to the character that she played. And you know what? NOW, I'm going to bitter about something, about "just a week old" - because I've seen my articles hrepeatedly reverted in a matter of hours even as they were clearly tagged as the work still in progress, with expansion tags and everything (this one isn't, so it's going to be treated as a complete article - and it's an article that is very poor and really awkward, and even so badly written that its only(!) internal link in this mis-named "Apparances" section now stands out as "Georgia[disambiguation needed]"). And what's so notable about being "a major driver for the player"? Like, uh... what? No, really, what? But anyway. I don't want it to be actually deleted, it should be redirected, at least for now, its content better used somewhere else. Very obviously so. Also a similar problem as with Sheva I've got with Heavenly Sword's Nariko - she's got TONS of reception, but only very recently she's appeared in any other game. --Niemti (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That kind of statement makes it sound to me like you really need to not be invested in this, especially considering how bitter you are. You're so bitter about people did something that you did not like that you do exactly that to another article (or rather, encourage another user to)? Far too much of your argument is built only on "other stuff exists/doesn't exist". You may not like characters from only one game getting an article, but quite frankly, that is an opinion that has no basis. In video games, as I pointed out before, numerous characters had articles made for them with only a single game under their belt. The Big Daddy, from BioShock, received tons of attention. The titular Bayonetta (pun intended), Andrew Ryan of BioShock, GLaDOS of Portal, etc. The important thing for a character is that reliable sources took this character and discussed her in a non-trivial manner, regardless of whether or not the articles they wrote placed her as the subject of the articles, as well as the creators making an effort to fill readers in on the history and design of the character. Both are accomplished here; while they could both be better - I know for certain that both Creation and Reception sections are missing content that I have seen - they are enough to allow the article to be kept. At this stage you seem to be, in part, spiting the article. (PS: as each Episode in The Walking Dead is released separately, it constitutes "appearances".) - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Invalid proposal"? The sources, as they are, were added after the proposal. And they're mostly duplicated from other articles on the game; and the references are about the game, not the character supposedly the subject of this article. More importantly, it's still not appropriate as a subject for a stand alone article. Creation was way premature. The article should be deleted, and any text in it that wasn't cribbed from other articles could be merged into the main game article. Barsoomian (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell that "Creation was way premature." after 1 edit and 16 minutes? Why did you put this to AFD if "any text in it that wasn't cribbed from other articles could be merged into the main game article"; merges do not require admin and ergo, you should have dropped merged tags on the page instead. I'm not saying that creator of this article is blameless because yes, there were other ways to start this content somewhere else in a better manner, but its here, and Wikipedia has much different ways of dealing with this type of content than outright deletion. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's premature for the reasons initially stated. As you yourself said initially. And after 4 days and 20 edits, by several people, it's no less premature. The closing admin can decide to merge if at that time the article has any substance worth it. Barsoomian (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge - With The Walking Dead (2012 video game). Not independently notable other than as a character from this one game. --Phazakerley (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I've already voted Keep above, but I wanted to note that the recent issue of Game Informer donates six-page article to the character of Clementine herself. It's called "Creating Clementine" and has information about how her conception, how the entire game was basically designed around her, and other anecdotes like how the game's financial people were initially hesitant about basing a game so much on a child character. The article calls her "this year's most beloved protagonist" and says of her "Clementine isn't just a collection of polygons on a television screen. She's broken through the barrier, securing a place in the hearts of many, a feat most video game characters never accomplish." I think this helps further prove the article's notability, and the primary author should take a look at it and add the info to the article. — Hunter Kahn 03:01, 14 December 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clementine_(The_Walking_Dead)&oldid=1144348775"