Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shulk

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shulk

[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)

Shulk, despite being basically the poster boy for Xenoblade Chronicles and and a major character on his own, doesn't seem to meet general SIGCOV thresholds for me. All of his Reception is sourced to reviews of the game- which, while not unusable, requires some sourcing beyond just the reviews- and to his Smash appearance (The latter of which barely classifies as commentary, with a lot of it boiling down to "He is a strong character") and the only other source I could find was an admittedly solid book source, which I'll link here. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Posthumanism_in_digital_culture/jjYTEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Shulk%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT115&printsec=frontcover Beyond the book, there is very little significant coverage of Shulk as an individual character. I feel a merge to Xenoblade Chronicles may be the best AtD, given most of the sourcing in the article is straight from reviews of that game. I'm unopposed to a future recreation, but Shulk as it stands right now is very lacking in terms of what's needed for a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2024 (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. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator (though I wasn't notified?) Beyond the source already mentioned in the nomination, there's significant coverage literally in the article. Here's an entire lengthy article written about him. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies about the issue with the pinging. Didn't realize that Twinkle was sending it to the wrong person. In any case, I'd argue Shulk's coverage is a bit lacking, as it doesn't really illustrate that the character is notable himself. It's basically all tied to reviews of Xenoblade Chronicles and Smash, which as mentioned is pretty lacking. The reviews give good coverage to him, I agree, but it doesn't really illustrate why he should be a separate article, given how they're all focused on his role in that specific game. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see the source you linked when I replied, sorry about that. Either way, the article doesn't seem to be too much in terms of significant coverage, since it's just a summary of Shulk's appearance in Xenoblade with some admittedly solid developmental info. I don't think it's enough to salvage the article entirely, unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? We've got multiple detailed sources, and an article that is 100% sourced. That's all we need here. Sergecross73 msg me 01:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean by multiple detailed sources? Do you mean in terms of conception, reception, or both? I'm just making sure I don't misinterpret your argument by accident here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator admits that the Posthumanism in digital culture source is solid. The engadget article is clearly independent and specifically about the character. A well-sourced article. Toughpigs (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Engadget source may be about the character, but there's not really much being said in the article. It's basically just a summary of Shulk's appearance in Xenoblade Chronicles rather than any form of commentary of analysis. I don't believe it really qualifies as an independent source for SIGCOV in this case. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. Every aspect of the Engadget article is about Shulk, and it's not a short article. It's the definition of SIGCOV. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is about Shulk, but it's not SIGCOV. This is a plot summary article, and I don't see any meaningful commentary or analysis in here. If I'm wrong and missed something, feel free to correct me, because I'd be happy to count it if it does. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally a third party source discussing the subject in significant detail. That's what the GNG requires. Whether or not you found the commentary personally meaningful is completely irrelevant. Sources detailing subjects is what we need. Sergecross73 msg me 02:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it can be verified as existing does not mean it is inherently notable. There needs to be some form of impact shown via the character, whether that be via outside discussion or via a real-world impact. Something like the book source above does that: It's an outside source that actively discusses the character in a meaningful context. The Engadget source is merely a plot summary. While it's an outside source, it doesn't provide much for the article. Where would it be used? It can't be used for Reception. At most it would sub in for a source used in Conception. It doesn't add anything meaningful to the article. The reviews fall under a similar issue, as they analyze Shulk's role in the context of the game exclusively. The book source discusses Shulk's actions in the game, but uses these actions to analyze beyond the work in question. I'm not against plucking from reviews, as they can be used to great effect in an article if there's enough coverage on them. But if the only sources are reviews with only one additional source, then the subject is better off being covered as a part of the work being reviewed, not as a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misapplying these concepts. The WP:GNG does not require any if that of its sources. It simply requires sources to cover a subject in significant detail, which it does. The rest of what you're saying would apply to a short stub or article highly redundant to its parent article, of which this article is neither. And the irony of it all is that your source - the one that ties the subject to transhumanism, is probably some of the best evidence that he is discussed outside of the scope of his respective games. Sergecross73 msg me 06:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have apparently missed the excellent "Conception and creation" section. Simply repeating "it's not SIGCOV" is not helpful. Toughpigs (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that Conception and creation is definitely the highlight of the article, but it definitely doesn't justify a split given the lacking Reception. Shulk isn't someone like Varan where the massive amount of behind-the-scenes information justifies the article's existence. There's some good stuff, but I don't think it's enough to justify a split from the main article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Varan is a fine article, but it's something to aspire to work towards, not the bare minimum bar to clear for a subject to have its own article. There's substantial content here - two detailed paragraphs of development/creation info, specifically about the subject, that is entirely reliably sourced. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep To clarify leading into this, I'm going with "Weak" because I'm spread thin and did mainly a cursory look online. However, this article from Paste magazine discusses his role in the story with some thoughts, VG247 also gives some thoughts, as does this other article from Engadget, and some thoughts from Edge. I feel with the book ref above (which seems to be in scholar also under two papers?), there's enough here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the strongest article, but the sources already in the article, as well as the sources Kung Fu Man found, have demonstrated that it passes WP:GNG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided by Kung Fu Man, I'd say, in conjunction with other sources, definitely show to me that Shulk is definitely worthy of a split, thus I'll be withdrawing this nomination, given all votes thus far have been keep ones. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2024 (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.