Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Kanzuki

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 Characters of the Street Fighter series. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Kanzuki

[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)

A large part of this character's reception is strictly about how professional players regarded her in Street Fighter V...and not even specifically in articles for her. While gameplay can be a factor for a character's notability, it doesn't show an overarching importance beyond the game itself, or any impact towards it. Other mentions are trivial, not really establishing any importance or examination. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. A mention in NPR is surprising, and there's also a Destructoid article here, but everything else feels rather press-release like. I am not seeing the significant coverage needed for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources indicate the character's notability and popularity, especially in the reception. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through your votes at afd, such as at Gouken's and Yuuki's AFDs. Why do you keep providing weak rationale for almost every AFD??? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 16:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. You've got to be more specific if you want your stance to be seriously considered by the closing admin. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep this short as I do not want to make this AFD about me; I will be honest, I had intended to give longer explanations but due to some exams I have had less time. I was under the impression that my arguments were good enough, as I had seen some AFD arguments which were full of just one word answers/policies/essay links or "per x user" or "per above", and I think that explanations were short but reasonable enough. For some, as the explanations on the notability of sources had been explained above, I did not want to be repetitive. Additionally, it is not "almost every AFD", there are hundreds of current and past AFDs that I have not commented on - I do not look at all of them, only some, but I only comment on articles I think are notable/able to be improved. If you would like to talk about this more, I can send an email or discuss on my talk page. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. As the guideline says "A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are." That also includes making sure it is not just vaguely waving at "sources" but detailing which ones support the rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that it is not a vote - that is why I have always provided explanation, though I was unaware that they were not long enough. But I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that AFD is not done by the number votes, but rather the quality of !votes. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem boils down to the fact that you can't really do these vague "keep per user" or "keep its notable" stances when you're the first person to advocate a specific stance in the discussion. That really only works when someone has already written a well reasoned, detailed response that you agree with. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives which in particular?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the sources mentioned above, the main source that stuck out to me was [1], as it is clearly independent, and whilst it is part of a list, it does take about the character in detail. [2] also stuck out to me as it talks in depth about the character, as does [3] though to a lesser extent. I saw them as independent as the websites are not focussed on Street Fighter but the video game genre. Additionally, many of the list articles showing the character's popularity do strengthen the notability - on their own I would be on the fence, but in addition to the others, I think it meets GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives Well the last one there, if I may, is essentially a press release, and not discussing the character per se. Additionally the redbull entry is discussing the gameplay of multiple characters in the context of Street Fighter V based off the player's perception. There's a possible issue of him being a reliable source of course, but a bigger matter is it's not showing importance separate from the game itself. Think of, say, someone using articles like these to justify Killer Instinct characters. Not trying to shoot you down, just explain the issues as I'm seeing them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ps Blog could qualify as a primary source. Red Bull would be okay for sourcing purposes, but a list of characters tends to prove the characters as a whole are notable rather than a single one. There's a reason listicles are considered very dicey. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Despite liking Karin, and not thinking it's quite as weak as some merged Street Fighter articles, I feel that it is unfortunately lacking in both significant coverage and evidence of notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article is in weak state. It needs more that has been discussed primarily about the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. This isn't WP:SIGCOV. It's probably better to follow the coverage and include it with the rest of the series or characters. Characters of the Street Fighter series could be a good target, and I would suggest some development/reception information going there too. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two sources in here and the Anime News Network source are good. Karin seemed to get a decent amount of attention for her return after a long absence. The creation section has some interesting details too. I think these sources satisfy the WP:GNG. MoonJet (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that the Anime News Network source is great, and the Destructoid source is decent. With the NPR source, however, it seems to be summing up that she is popular and that she ranked highly on polls, the NPR source itself doesn't seem to say much. If there was a third source on the caliber of at least Destructoid, I might change my mind. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:25, 5 February 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.