Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranger (character class)

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. Article makes its saving throw against deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger (character class)

Ranger (character class) (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)

Primarily a WP:DICDEF mixed with large amounts of WP:OR. TVTropes handles this just fine, but Wikipedia is not TVTropes. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel this is a tentative Keep and massive cleanup and maybe even a Merge with Ranger (Dungeons & Dragons). There seems to be a clear path from Aragorn from LOTR to the concept of the D&D ranger class to the general concept of ranger across other fictional worlds. Coverage of the general "character trope" and its history would be better than what either this list or the D&D has as long as the history can be sourced. --Masem (t) 00:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Masem, although failing that a more sensible merge may be to Character class. BOZ (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A well known character class found in multiple fictional sources. Needs some cleanup just as Warrior (character class), Wizard (character class), Cleric (character class), and Thief (character class) do, but the solution is normal editing methods not deletion. Reliable sources giving ample coverage of the ranger class are easily enough to find. [1] and [2] for example. Dream Focus 18:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as they are quite the same and also lack references that show they are notable. The sources you mentioned are not about "rangers" in general, but rangers as specific to a particular game, so it would be WP:SYNTH if they were combined._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are books such as Working with Video Gamers and Games in Therapy: A Clinician's Guide By Anthony M. Bean which talk about the ranger archetype. I'll see what other sources can be found. Dream Focus 09:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem like enough content to improve the Character class page with referenced sections on each class. I'm still not convinced that each class requires its own article though. Not even TVTropes separates the classes into sub-articles. Actually they do, my bad._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 09:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is nothing like a dictionary definition and so the nomination's reference to WP:DICDEF is misleading. The nomination's reference to TV Tropes is even more incongruous as this has little to do with TV. So, there's no case for deletion but, just to be sure, here's a reasonable source on the topic which demonstrates the topic's notability and potential: The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games. Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2019 (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.