Talk:Bella Goth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

keep it!

awesome.. I hope some guy in a black hat doesn't come round and say otherwise... JimmmyThePiep 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to be that guy: why must the article always be expanded? Wikipedia is not a game manual, or game guide. Bella Goth is neither a main character or 'important' in any sense of the word - what makes her canon more interesting than the Newbies'? Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely related topics. Additionally, there is no way this would survive WP:NOTE. ALTON .ıl 07:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno.. if you search around there are a lot of forums which discuss the Bella Goth plot ; as opposed to very few forums discussing the Newbies. There's tutorials explaining how to extract Bella, there's a surprising number of decent youTube videos featuring Bella and co. The plot itself is interesting, as well as how gamers have reacted to it.

This could just be my biased view, but I do think Bella and the other Goths are the fan-favourite family of Sims players.

(I also see a couple of characters from older, less-known yet cult-status video games have their own wikipedia pages. I thought it'd be alright to have a popular character in a recent game get a page too.) JimmmyThePiep 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, I agree, but it's always policy to get the last word. I have to leave the deletion notice there, as the article stands because if it's not me, someone else will. I loved the default Goths in Sims 1, and did weird things to their children, but no can do on Pedia. ALTON .ıl 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Right now, it's basically a character bio page. What if I included an explanation of the character's impact on the community? JimmmyThePiep 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources and any information gleaned from them for use in an article is original research. Basing the important of a character in a video game on what you read in a forum doesn't qualify a subject for an article. She has no notability outside the series, and there is very little reliable material from which to base an article on her.--Crossmr 06:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thout she was Japanese?

-I didn't mean go into forums and regurgitate what they write; I mean forums are one example of how many of the audience is interested in Bella Goth. Not just forums though; fansites, tutorials. Surely this phenomenon of an entirely unimportant character being so fascinating to the community is note-worthy..

-She could be Japanese; I was just guessing she was Portuguese from the tone of her skin. JimmmyThePiep 08:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You're basing that importance on your observation of an unreliable source. Unless you have reliable independent sources to confirm that assertion its original research.--Crossmr 13:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(understanding dawns) Oh; Original research is bad. Oh, okay. .... Really? ..

Wikipedia is only allowed to host data that other people have published or stated? JimmmyThePiep 21:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the Verifiability policy; it lists sources that are appropriate. But again, just because the information comes from a reliable source does not mean it's appropriate for inclusion here. ALTON .ıl 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've redirected this. There were too many problems with the article. Least of which was the fact that she doesn't warrant one. The spoilers list contained a bunch of fan theories, which aren't verifiable as they're not published by a reliable source, as well there is half-guesses and opinion in the introduction, and the sole reference is a self-published fansite which isn't considered reliable.--Crossmr 22:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)