Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Min Min (character)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Min Min (character)

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video game character. Article fails WP:SIGCOV as the reception sources are a WP:REFBOMB and all are of poor quality, either based on listicles or individual sentence snippets from reviews. That is not how notability is demonstrated, references must be both secondary and significant. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading right, it kind of looks like IPs keep publishing it without the consent of the original writer? I've had that happen to myself before too, on drafts that sat unpublished a long time because it took a long time to confirm notability. Might be best to Draftify and WP:SALT until it's ready. It's probably close. Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She got WP:SIGCOV when she was released as DLC for Super Smash Bros Ultimate (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]). The REFBOMB is an issue for the article, but I still think the character is notable as part of the Ultimate roster with significant coverage as such. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are just simple announcements about her reveal for being in Smash Bros. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:SIGCOV with [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. There is some bad sources in here, but a lot of good sources. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those sources are either marked as unreliable or situational/iffy at WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 15:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Kotaku's source is fully valid and is not situational, The Escapist's source meets the criteria laid out on WP:VG/S. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, so that would still make it "most", as I said. Just pointing out that you did not in fact supply five reliable sources, as people who didn't look closely may have missed otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - A single significant Kotaku article is not enough for the article to pass GNG. I don't believe the other sources are reliable. Again, a WP:REFBOMB is insufficient compared to real sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few sources specifically vetted as unreliable in the article could be removed, development needs copy editing for grammar and better presentation. But, these are editorial concerns. Otherwise, it's fine and per WP:NEXIST, the cited sourcing meets the threshold for WP:GNG in my opinion. The article does not revolve around WP:GAMECRUFT or WP:GAMEGUIDE material. Commentary on her appearance for Smash has been punctuated with WP:RSOPINION so they are not mere routine announcements. Haleth (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think this is enough: [11], [12], [13]. There is a bit more, but overal enough non-social media writeups to squeeze through GNG requirement. Feel free to ping me if you want to argue those soruces are bad. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: For the reason, see WP:VG/S. GameRant and EventHubs are both unreliable sources, as determined by editors of the VG Wikiproject._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion about the reliability of Game Rant here, and the emerging consensus isn't as clear cut as you are suggesting, with more editors currently leaning towards it being reliable. It still isn't a high quality source in my opinion, but this discussion is an AfD and not a GA/FA review, Game Rant isn't a self-published social media outlet, and this article isn't a BLP, so there is no hard and fast rule here where the source can be conclusively discounted from being WP:RSOPINION. Back to the topic before us, Nintendo Life, Destructoid, The Escapist and Screenrant are all sources cited in the article which count towards WP:GNG. Haleth (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, but I think GameRant is so-so. Depends on the article, this one doesn't seem to bad. We also have Kotaku, and The Escapist, which are reliable, but the latter seems one of their lower quality pieces. For now I am still in the "weak keep" camp, the sources are not the best, but I think they are enough to make this borderline notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or redirect: I would only consider Kotaku and Destructoid as significant coverage. That is not adequate enough to justify a full article. OceanHok (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My rule of thumb is that two sources meet the bare minimum GNG requires ("multiple"). Two is "multiple"... isn't it? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:Usually only 3 counts as multiple, see WP:3SOURCES. Only if the two sources are incredibly indepth can you say that notability is proven by them alone._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That...is an essay reflecting an editor’s personal interpretation and opinion on standards concerning quantity of sources, which can be anywhere from 2 to 10 or even dozens of sources, and no offense intended, but I don't believe the author is an administrator or even a highly influential or respected editor. There is no clear and unambiguous guideline vetted by community consensus on exactly how many sources are needed to meet the hypothetical threshold of GNG for fictional topics, like for example WP:NBOOK which is an actual guideline, and I should point out that it was purposefully kept ambiguous and open to interpretation. Haleth (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arms (video game). Cover any necessary character traits in context in the Gameplay section; cover the character's subsequent usage in other Nintendo games in the Legacy section. The sources mentioned above are very low quality if not outright unreliable, falling short of the GNG. It's an absolute stretch to call this topic independently notable when everything that has been written on this topic can easily fit within the parent article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It might needed copy edit and etc. Kotaku and Destrctoid would be probably barely enough, but these 2 sources might be worth adding. Director Kosuke Yabuki recommended Min Min to be the ARMS representative in Smash Bros. Even when it appears that Spring Man was protagonist on ARMS, the director further stated that every character is ARMS' protagonist [14]. David L. Craddock of Shacknews claimed that Min Min his favorite ARMS character, stating that it also reminds him of the gaming term “min-max,” and he claimed that he never thought of min-min-ing until Min-Min’s addition to the Smash roster [15]. 180.194.151.145 (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think there is just enough about coverage about the character to scrape WP:GNG, but a marginal one. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:19, 14 June 2021 (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.