Talk:Anju and Kafei

Big potential reliability issue with sources
I noticed this article and was checking the sources due to being surprised it was notable. I came across this source which is a major one used in the article. However, it appears to be written by a random user and promoted, rather than being actually written by the journalist whose byline is used for the article. Thus it would fall under WP:USERG for personal blogs. The Game Developer source is the same - a "contributor" article that is merely someone's blog post.

I do still think the article is weakly notable even without that source so this isn't an article takedown. Den of Geek, TheGamer and Nintendo World Report, as well as the other Destructoid article, are already enough. But these particular ones may need to be totally removed as inadmissible.

On an unrelated note, I think this article may be better off moved to Testament of Love in the vein of other "mission" articles like Milkman Conspiracy or Robbing the Cradle. The characters are entirely known in the context of a single quest, the quest is what is being praised in this situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't catch those two, thanks. However, I'd dispute the claim that it should be about the quest, as the quest itself is not what people refer to; rather, the characters are the subject. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I double checked, Daniel Starkey's post may have been a community post, but he also does reviews for Destructoid and GameSpot. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, while Testament of Love is an official name for it, the name is not common, only appearing in the 3DS re-release. When I Google it, there are only 44 results for it, which tells me that even if the quest is notable, the name of the quest is not, so making it about Anju and Kafei is the best approach since people who know the quest know the characters. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that the post was not by Daniel Starkey, it was only listed under his byline but was by the user "idle eros". Unless you can prove that is the handle of Starkey.
 * Also, Den of Geek's headline is "Why Testament of Love Is Legend of Zelda's Greatest Quest", and it's one of the most significant sources in the article. Even if the name was only added in the remake, we could argue the quest only became notable DUE to the remake bringing it back into the public consciousness, so that's not too big of an issue. Still, I guess it could go either way but it certainly seems like it's largely the quest being referred to with the shorthand of using the NPCs names since the quest was nameless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I find the notion that the remake made it popular incredibly dubious. Most sources are either before MM3D or much later than MM3D. The Den of Geek source doesn't even refer to MM3D, so I feel like the suggestion has no basis. As far as idle eros, this is not an RS, but looking at an extremely dubious source, this source professes to have emails of various game journalists, and one alleged email by Starkey says idle eros is his XBLA tag. I also think that it being by someone besides Starkey would be incredibly strange, because I've never seen a Destructoid article be attributed to a random staffer, they've always attributed it to community members. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And if you argue that the quest is the notable aspect, naming it Testament of Love would be strange because it's not even nearly a common name, being in only one release of the game, where the quest is unnamed on GameCube, N64, and the Switch NSO. It would still be appropriate to call it by the name of the characters, since the characters are always mentioned in RSes about them, but the quest name is not. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay, I can accept that he did indeed write the full article given that iffy but seemingly on point evidence. Everything else seems okay enough. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With regards to the re-added Game Developer source, I tried to look for where it was originally from and only came up with this link to a dead blog. It was preserved in Internet Archive here and the article is listed under February 2011. With all due respect, this is precisely what WP:USERG says to avoid, a personal blog written only by an anonymous person. My view is that it should be permanently removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not think merely being anonymous is itself an issue, given that it is a Featured Blog on the site. I decided to add this back in after Masem weighed in on a discussion I raised (with the ultimate purpose being addressing the lack of clarification about user-made content on the site). You should probably weigh in there, not only for this discussion, but for the sake of addressing whether user-made content on GD should be usable, Featured Blog or otherwise. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)