Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugal Bernstein

< 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 merge to List of The King of Fighters characters. There is a consensus that the coverage available is not enough to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rugal Bernstein

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was promoted to GA back in 2009 when standards were very different. The reception of the character only consists of trivial mentions pulled from reviews and brief mentions in listicle articles that otherwise contain most or all other characters as well. The design section is primary sourced and has no real bearing on notability. By current standards, this article fails WP:GNG and is more fitting for Wikia. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the characters list. I say since I'm kinda experienced with this series so I can't provide sources. Still, it's a deletion discussion necessary? Deleting the character rather than merging would be a massive downgrade.Tintor2 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for reasons above - Balle010 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The reception section is lengthy, but based primarily, if not solely, on mentions in passing. But some of those at least seem to be more than rankings. It's not great, but is the coverage really insufficient? I'll see what the usual inclusionist find, if anything before I cast my vote, and I'd also appreciate if the nominator would kindly explain why they think the reception section is bad. Did you check if none of the sources cited are in-depth? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked, and the majority are single sentences or snippets of sentences cherry picked from reviews and the like. Nothing that demonstrates significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reception is quite substantial. It appears this character is asserted as a primary contributor to a rather well known trope in SNK video games. Two published sources in addition to sources from listicles and reviews are cited and quoted, but I am unable to verify them by searching on the internet to verify the nominator's assertion that they are trivial mentions. Standards may have improved but I believe the right approach should be to reassess and probably demote it from GA status, not subject to possible deletion. Haleth (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think AFD is the correct place for GA demotion; if this is kept we could go to WP:GAR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I am saying. I am saying the issue about the article is misidentified, per WP:NTEMP. The nominator's position is that the topic is not notable to begin with, base on a certain interpretation of GNG; I disagree. Notability standards have not changed, but criteria on what constitutes a good quality article has. Haleth (talk) 03:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going by the sources I can currently access, notability is not shown, and the WP:BURDEN is on the creator. If they can't glean more than a sentence from the source they used, I'm going to assume it's trivial as well.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the WP:NEXIST guideline asserts that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I don't believe I have seen any guidelines or essays which encourage the notion that cited sources are presumed to be trivial unless proven otherwise. Per an argument made under WP:SEMI-N, notability is a term that covers the availability of sources for an article on a topic, it's not a goal in and of itself, which I've noticed is an ongoing theme with many of the AfD nominations. The practical application is that it is simply not possible to write a coherent, encyclopedic article regarding the subject topic if the existing sources do not sustain it. In my view, the article is coherent and has encyclopedic value with no OR, it isn't a coat track article where reliable sources are used as a distraction from a lengthy in-universe plot section that's of little encyclopedic value. Also, WP:BASIC which is related to the GNG guideline suggests that multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial by itself. Fictional characters are not subject to a topic-specific guideline on notability. The main substantial change in standards since 2009 is how articles are judged and assessed on quality, not on notability standards. WP:EMSC suggests that the SIGGCOV guideline leaves the definition of significant coverage wide open to personal opinion and circumstance and that is integral for AfD to not become a rule-following system and to allow for discretion in edge-cases. Haleth (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without saying where the non trivial sources are that demonstrate it should be kept, this comment is largely meaningless. Deletion should definitely be a resort if the article is non-notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has already been demonstrated that the character is discussed by third party sources, and the article passed a GA review at one point. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE, I maintain my stance that this should have gone through a GA reassessment or the page editors (the people knowledgeable on the subject) before being nominated for deletion. Processes exist for a reason. Every policy and guideline also says that "The sources in the "Reception" section aren't the best" on its own is a poor reason to nominate something for deletion (WP:NEXIST, WP:DELREASON, WP:ARTN, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, and the list goes on...). That doesn't reflect WP:GNG one way or the other. As of now, I don't believe it has been substantiated that this topic is "better suited for Wikia" (which in itself is a subjective claim). Darkknight2149 05:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article passed a GA review in 2009, many GA's and FA's from back then have since been delisted for not holding up to current standards. But nothing says a delist is required to delete if an article is clearly not notable. There were many of these types of WP:REFBOMB articles created then. WP:NEXIST does not apply when all the references are trivial mentions such as: "Omega Rugal topped off the package with one of the most stylish boss designs in fighting history, although more than a few gamers grew to hate the sight of him."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NEXIST states "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." Not only does it always apply, but in situations where an article has previously passed a GA test or already has sources that may not seem satisfactory, it is actually more applicable, not less. Darkknight2149 05:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sources out there that establish Rugal Berenstein as a notable KOF character, including its development so, deleting this despite the number of references already in place prior to this discussion is a step backwards. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a solid consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:54, 20 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rugal_Bernstein&oldid=991172723"