Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taki (Soulcalibur)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taki (Soulcalibur)

[edit]

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

Taki (Soulcalibur) (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)

Fancruft. A redirect to the list of characters is enough. TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 12:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the article is kept, this needs to be trimmed way down. Way too much in-universe story details and pointless details. There’s no way a general encyclopedia should be tracking all this minutiae about how her measurements/bust sizes (!?) have changed over the years, descriptions of all these different outfits she’s warn, etc. Making a determination on notability itself will take more time from me, as this seems to be a massive case of WP:BOMBARD at first glance... Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "descriptions of all these different outfits she’s warn" (sic) - it isn't even there. Here's where it actually is (in pictures, since https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Taki/Original_Timeline#Costumes is just empty): https://soulcalibur.wikia.com/wiki/Taki/Gallery (there's been over a dozen). As for "measurements", I'll give to you about the weight - actually the blood type would be more important (it's not there, but it's A), becuase of how huge this is in Japanese culture. Also no lol. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rest assured, everything I said is in there, is in there. But if you refuse to acknowledge it in there, I’m sure you’ll have no problem when it’s trimmed out down the line. Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of "all these different outfits she’s warn" are not even mentioned, and these not mentioned are not named - only SC Woman is named, but only because it was widely[1] (and elsewhere not on tyhis list, like[2][3] etc.) reported. I removed the weight (and added the blood type). Btw I actually have a lot of Japanese print material on the costumes and such from books and mags, but I have a difficult time translating it (I should really ask someone to do it for me). And as for measurements, even the "good Article" Li Long has the height, despite this having not been commented on (Taki's was, in the book [4]). And as for "plot" (which you didn't me examples of your problems), Li Long's "Good Article" not only isn't much less detailed than this (compared only around 1-4 sentences for each main game in Taki's case) but manages to be confusing and inadequate by just not explaining things enough - actually only Taki's article provides explanation for things who was this "a woman named Chie" and the line "on the run from assassins sent by his former employer" that misleadingly suggests it's about the Chinese Emperor is just false (Taki's article explains what and why really happens - Li Long article's odd "While out one day, a fight broke out at the inn" is also directly related to Taki-Toki-Chie story). But that's a "Good Article" somehow - despite the reference using for it (this: [5]) being just mistranslated from Japanese! I just fixed this glorious Good Article by correcting disinformation: [6] and I suggest for you to try constructive things like that, instead of what you do. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not fancruft. The article incorporates conceptual design, and other encyclopedic information. I agree with Sergecross73 that it needs to be trimmed, which can be done by copy editors, and/or collaboration among interested parties. Atsme📞📧 15:33, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding info cited to IGN's "SOULCALIBUR: THE TOP TEN FIGHTERS", "Taki is one of the stalwart mainstays of the Soul series. Even more so, as she is the only fighter to actually be playable in all six games. Everyone loves a good ninja, and Taki just so happens to be one of the best."

*Keep: The article itself cites sources to prove the subject's notability. The article requires clean-up and work, but that is definitely not a reason to nominate it for an AfD. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep but trim way down per Sergecross73 (also fine with Redirect as a secondary option). A few of the sources (e.g. UGO, FHM) are both RS and discuss the character outside the context of the games, but this is really on the edge. Chetsford (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Chetsford. Nomader (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP; and everyone please note it's a part of a weird, extremely aggresive, totally unprovoked (our very first interaction: [7]), and selective (only this article, and not for example Li Long that only appeared in 2 games in this series (Taki's in 8, 7 of these playable, not counting spin-off games and guest appearances) and is actually even a "Good Article" despite only having a fraction of references) attack on me TheLongTone that began when I just did as asked/requested to do (see here: [8]) 3 months earlier and finally split Siegfried. This was preceded by blatant vandalism when he just deleted the article without asking anyone (and I did report this act of vandalism, but this didn't have a real effect apparently as he's not quite gone away / blocked / whatever). I'd really like his to be sanctioned in some way. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh puh-leeese. I WP:BEBOLD changed an overlong heap of fancruft back into a redirect. Than is not vandalism; my cited comment was a response to fanboi's revert of that edit.TheLongTone (talk) 12:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ANI is thataway ⤴️ Atsme📞📧 06:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's a lie and he's lying. Proof: [9] (time: 13:54) vs [10] (time: 14:00). His actual (quote) "response to fanboi's revert" was this, this time in the style a threat of physical violence: [11] (time: 14:03; quote: "You are cruising for a bruising. Grow up, as quickly as you can.") SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By cruising for a bruising I meant that snake's behavior was likely to result in sanctions. I fail to see how it could be construed as athreat of physical violence, since even if it is possible to deliver a slapped wrist or even the dreaded Rear Admiral over the internet my technological knowledge is not up to it. Their hysterical behavior underlines their need to mature a bit, altho I don't see it happening.12:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
I said "in the style a threat of physical violence" - if I said he's "gonna get raped", would it also going to be ignored because I can't actually penetrate him over the internet and it's only in the style of sexual violence threat? Is "You are cruising for a bruising. Grow up, as quickly as you can" just a normal and approved way to talk to each other on Wikipedia - while complaining about that is "hysterical behavior", and also calmly editing without breaking any rules or arguing with anyone, having been specifically asked by another editor (requested publicly, without anyone opposing this idea for months), "likely to result in sanctions"? And is that "BEBOLD" to be his excuse also to having just (boldly) lie to everyone? That's some questions for everyone here. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you translate the above into English, please?TheLongTone (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to try to in any way excuse having just lied here, or are you just going to let me and everybody assume the worst about it? And are you going to provide an alternative excuse for your initial outburst of abuse against me, without me doing anything at all (having been busy researching for further editing, and only learning about your existence from your instant threats on my talk page)? SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Valid or not, comments on editor conduct generally don't belong here at WP:AFD. Take it to WP:ANI if you wish to argue about that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73:, pinging you to intervene in this discussion. It's getting out of hand. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which? czar 04:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of the kind like the all 6 from the related Good Article Li Long, presumably. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
? That isn't the article under discussion. Of this Taki article's 195 sources, which provide significant coverage so as to show independent notability from the rest of the series characters?

"Stand-alone notability has been proven." @Soetermans
"article itself cites sources to prove the subject's notability" @Aoba47
"there's enough notability presented by many of the better sources to keep it around" @Kung Fu Man

Where is the evidence for these claims? A handful of links with brief rationale would suffice, but vague waving at sources does not. czar 12:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how my rationale is "vague waving at sources" as you put it, as I clearly state that I believe the sources currently used in the article support its notability. We may disagree on it, but my statement was not vague. Aoba47 (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...not providing specifics when prompted is the definition of vague. In fact, the logical conclusion is that the above editors are more impressed by reams of mere mentions than any source that actually, reliably asserts the standalone importance of the character, as there is no evidence of the latter. This AfD shows a shameful lack of due diligence. czar 12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A shameful lack of due diligence"? That is a new one lol. I believe that further investigation should go into Japanese source given this is a character from a Japanese video game franchise; there could be possible be more information there, but I am uncertain due to the language barrier. Upon further examination of the sources, I am uncertain about the character's notability for a stand-alone article. However, I do not believe that deletion is the answer, as this is a viable source. I think that a redirect and selective merge to List of Soulcalibur characters would be a far better answer than a deletion, if consensus goes against the character having a standalone article. I have struck my keep vote, but I am not going to cast a further/different vote either way; I had previously cast the vote due to the sources in the "Design and characteristics" section. I had felt at the time those sources satisfied notability (just a further explanation of my previous vote). Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many of the keep votes don't focus on specific sources. Further discussion is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 14:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has a good balance between real world and in-universe information. There is both positive and negative reception, the gameplay is mentioned from designer's point of view and there is some good creation information. I don't know if there's an example to follow but I think it surpasses the needs of notability.Tintor2 (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusABtalk 15:33, 29 August 2018 (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/Taki_(Soulcalibur)&oldid=857692791"