Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightwolf

Nightwolf

[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)

Even factoring in Nightwolf's controversy for being an ethnic stereotype, the reception of the article is solely based on trivial mentions and listicles. In fact, it is unintentionally ironic that a section about how he is a reductive stereotype would cite the article "Top 11 Native Americans in gaming". There is no basis here for a standalone article, and it should be redirected to the character list at most. The article suffers from WP:REFBOMB to give the appearance of notability when it really fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Too much of the content comes from unreliable listicles, relying on extensive quotes to pad out the content. Everything else seems to be mostly trivial mentions, so it doesn't appear there's any substantial discussion on the character. TTN (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. I'm certainly guilty of having padded many Mortal Kombat character articles, especially the reception sections, because I was told that it was the right thing to do back in the day. However, time is not kind to the majority of MK characters and they have remained no more than bit players despite their longevity in the series, and Nightwolf is no exception. If this nomination is successful, then there are many other characters that should definitely follow suit. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Lots of trivial mentions, not seeing WP:SIGCOV (ping me if I missed something). But merge, not delete. The passing mentions are valuable for a list of characters or such. PS. I did a GScholar search to see if there's any academic discourse of him from the ethnic discourse dimension, but I see only a (very) few mentions in passing. PPS. That said, Nightwolf#Ethnic_representation, while cobbled from passing mentions, is pretty impressive. I'd really prefer to see this rescued rather than merged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Well, since you prefer to see this rescued, what do you think of the sources Haleth and I just provided? MoonJet (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Nightwolf is a paid DLC character for the most recent MK game, which happened to have attracted some critical commentary. There's an IGN review for the DLC, as well as one from TheGamer. Eurogamer published a an original opinion piece which reflected on the similarities between the DLC character and a previous iteration from a early 90s cartoon, one week after a brief article which announced the DLC itself. There's further coverage from Comicbook.com and ScreenRant surrounding the character's depiction per the DLC. If Nightwolf is a completely new, previously unknown character then I'd question whether there is enough coverage from the aforementioned sources to write a short article at the very least. That is clearly not the case here. Piotrus also made a convincing point, in my view, in that there is enough aggregated coverage from a variety of different sources with regards to ethnic representation of Native Americans in popular media. Haleth (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that pretty much all of these sources are trivial coverage. Some of them might analyze his moveset a little, but mostly ignore Nightwolf as a character. Wikipedia is not the place for gamecruft analysis of characters' moves, they should be put in context of why they are important to a typical reader, which these sources cannot really do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs. The reviews from IGN and TheGamer specifically treat the subject in a non-trivial manner, as if it is any other video game commercial product. It's not as part of a compilation of recommendations like this one or as a section in a long form article about the DLC's of MK11. A long form video game review aspects of the subject in detail, but not necessarily with the same proportional focus: it might focus more on gameplay mechanics or character analysis or some other aspect like potential controversies, that's the author's prerogative, but it is still the kind of material that demonstrates evidence of significant coverage. Your argument about WP:GAMECRUFT refers to sources like this or this: these provide detailed instructions on how to perform the character's moves, so they probably cross the line of what Wikipedia is not, but it is irrelevant since this types of material is neither cited nor relied upon in the article or in this discussion to demonstrate notability. The purpose of an AfD is to determine whether significant coverage from independent reliable sources about the subject exists, not to scrutinize the potential level of "gamecruft analysis" contained within the prose because that is an editorial concern best handled in talk page discussions with interested editors that want to improve the contents of the article or its parent article. I'd point out that you have actually provided a clear WP:ATD merge-and-redirect solution while failing to provide a proper deletion rationale in your nomination, so there was never any prospect for deletion and another editor could probably close your nomination as speedy keep on procedural grounds, but whatever. Haleth (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The context of sources and their suitability for use in an article are factors related to determining if they are significant coverage. Articles covering a character solely from a gameplay perspective belong in the article about the game, if they belong anywhere at all. Articles that are purely covering the release of a character in the context of being included in a popular game are completely procedural and inherently do not show notability. It's coverage of the game itself, not the character. If those articles provide meaningful commentary on top of the procedural coverage, that's one thing, but covering it for the sake of covering it is trivial coverage. If you cannot gleam any meaningful content from a source, then it either is completely useless or only useful for meeting verifiability standards. TTN (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then please, do a proper source analysis for our benefit and articulate how the reviews for IGN and TheGamer lack "meaningful content" or that a review specifically about the character as DLC content is somehow not "coverage of the character" as alleged by you and the original nominator. Everything you just said is generic stuff that can be copied and pasted in any discussion, without being relevant to the actual issues at hand. Haleth (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's used in the article speaks for itself, two completely arbitrary fluff quotes on gameplay that don't have any place there. The discussion of the gameplay aspects of characters is only relevent when discussed from a very specific standpoint, not the random assortment of quotes currently used in the article. If it's something you couldn't reasonably expect to see in the main article, it doesn't belong in a character's article. TTN (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's used? Read the material again. The aforementioned sources have never been used or cited in the article until I brought them up in this discussion. I haven't edited the page to add content to the prose because that is not the purpose of an AfD. As for your assertion that "it's something you couldn't reasonably expect to see in the main article, it doesn't belong in a character's article", you're going off topic. There's the question of due weight here: without going into excessive detail, there are viable reasons as to why not every minute aspect of a broad topic can, should or need to be covered in significant detail within one page, specifically, the MK11 page which is what you are alluding to. The aforementioned sources represent ongoing, continued coverage of an existing topic, which lends credence to the idea that it is potentially notable to begin with. We are not debating whether a Nightwolf (Mortal Kombat 11 DLC) article should exist, but per common sense, of course coverage about Nightwolf (Mortal Kombat 11 DLC) should be included in an article about the character. If you still refuse to support your statements by scrutinizing in detail, from your point of view, why the content of the reviews are inappropriate or unsuited to be cited and discussed on Wikipedia at all, even within an article that is directly relevant, after I've repeatedly asked for your input, then we have nothing further to discuss Haleth (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please refer to Doomfist#Description, a GA-rated article, for comparison. As long as it does not go into excessive detail or violate the due weight or "not game guide" guidelines and policies, I don't see any valid concern that prose about a character's gameplay mechanics is somehow inappropriate to include on a Wikipedia article, especially on a page that is specifically about the character. Haleth (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are currently being utilized in the article, to no particular effect. The point about the main article is simple: Is this valuable content that would reasonably exist in the main article under different circumstances, that would then be split out if it took up too much weight, or is it content that would be simply cut from the main article because it has no value? My assertion is that it is the latter because random, unfocused commentary on gameplay is not suitable for a general encyclopedia. There is a reason most fighting game character articles don't have much discussion on it, and those that do are done poorly, like this article. TTN (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Haleth. Nightwolf has some controversy for being an ethnic stereotype, and there's some sources discussing that. I just added one to the article yesterday that goes a bit more in-depth, and here's another one that I have yet to add. And since he was DLC in MK11, we have reviews of him, such as the ones posted above. And here's a lengthy article about the character from CBR. And while I'm more lax with listicles than some other editors (and I must note that even some of the listicles talk about the cultural importance behind the character), these sources I provided are not listicles, nor are they trivial mentions.

That being said, the article definitely could use some cleanup. There's some other sources that can be removed from there too, since Dorkly and Cracked seem to be unreliable, as they are largely humor sites. MoonJet (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]