Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alisa Bosconovitch


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of Tekken characters. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Alisa Bosconovitch

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article lacks any significant reception discussing them as a character to satisfy SIGCOV or notability, and trying to find sources per WP:BEFORE proved fruitless in turn. At most she gets light mentions, but little actual discussion and more passing reactions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Tekken characters. There is no SIGCOV. I'm surprised the article lasted this long with that reception section. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please review the reception section again, there were countless deletions of valid sources by Kung Fu Man and others users that I wanted to restore. Some could be removed like the Twitter citations but I remember there were news article about polls for character popularity of that image. There was a Vice article about this character on mental health that was deleted for example. I think its pretty flawed to look at character reception and make an opinion, for example most news articles are written about controversies. Lucyk Chloe saw some social media uproar because of her being a generic Japanese idol character, Josie Rizal caused controversy because of a similar Phillipinian national figure with similar name, and boom there are your news articles now you have sources, and now you have ammo to write a Wikipedia article? I think that is a really flawed way how that should work on Wikipedia, and very revisionist. I mean it will only benefit basically the newest characters because the internet penetration wasnt really there yet during Xbox 360/PS3 era. Its a general problem on Wikipida with pop culture.--Crossswords (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean this Vice source that doesn't even discuss the character and barely mentions them?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It didn't, someone forcibly reverted the WP:BLAR under the guidelines of her appearances and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect back to the list. Crossswords, I insist you consider whether sources speak about the character in a significant way, as the Vice article has nothing about her - she's only tangentially related, a passing mention. Further, it's not even the author mentioning Alisa, it's a person interviewed for the article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The author is clearly mentioning Alisa and has even used the characters picture in the article header.
 * Quote: But gaming has allowed her to confront her fears in a safe environment, with the hours spent fighting as the Tekken 7 character Alisa Bosconovitch serving as an avenue for her to gain confidence, and get a handle on her anxious thoughts and feelings. Crossswords (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But this isn't commenting on Alisa in any way, and the article is clearly not talking about Alisa helping her mental health, but more Tekken 7. There's no evidence to suggest that Alisa is what helps her with mental health, it's just speculation. We obviously don't agree, so I won't continue this debate. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Tekken characters. Significant coverage must be considered when trying to create/expand an article. A character who gets numerous sentence-long mentions is not one who is individually notable, though there is a clear WP:ATD in the character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * To summarize my opinion at least, why this character warrants a Wikipedia page. She was one of the default Characters in Tekken 6 if you played the Story Campaign, playing offline she was the default companion along seeing cutscenes of her story with Lars Alexandersson. She was heavily featured in the CGI movie 'Tekken: Blood Vengeance' and there werent really that many other Tekken characters in this movie. There are countless cameos by now. Removing her own article would not reflect the reality of her impact as a Tekken character.Crossswords (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the general notability guideline doesn't give much weight to merely being featured in prominent roles. We can't speculate on her impact, which I wouldn't argue is based on what Bandai Namco does with Alisa, but what reliable secondary sources have to say about the character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Crosswords, stop bludgeoning Dronebogus (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, WP:ITSPOPULAR is not a valid AfD argument. If she was truly _that_ major she would have tons of significant coverage, no? So either there are sources nobody found yet (but you haven't put forward) or she is not actually that major. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge “reception” seems to be banking on a single vice article that doesn’t actually talk about he character. Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep this series of edits by the nominator invalidates the entire premise of the AfD: decimating an article and then nominating it for deletion is a user conduct issue and should be addressed as such before considering any such discussion valid. Articles should be put up for deletion in their "best" state, not one where someone with an opinion has already excised sources they don't think pass muster--if it's to be deleted, that's for the participants to decide. As you can see from the above !votes, this has had an effect on others' perceptions of the article. It may have gotten lost in ' WP:WAX arguments, but this deserves serious consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs)
 * I'll bite - what examples of significant coverage was removed? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the most significant source removed by Kung Fu Man is a Kotaku article with a few sentences about the producer joking (or not?) about her breasts being essential functionality.
 * I would tend to agree that articles should not be heavily pruned before an AfD, but I also don't see the major things that were removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's is literally nothing wrong with cleaning up an article before nominating it. Please don't baselessly suggest otherwise. Sergecross73   msg me  23:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you just lost your moral high ground by suggesting I'm casting aspersions... thereby casting aspersions yourself. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Moral high ground"...? Weird thing to say to someone who hasn't taken a stance in the argument. Anyways, until you cite something that says articles can't be trimmed/edited prior or during an AFD, your claim that the AFD is somehow "invalidated" is objectively false. Sergecross73   msg me  15:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Opinions can be objectively false? New one to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not following. You are talking about opinions. I am not. I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking you to cite something - a policy, guideline, or widely accepted consensus. Sergecross73   msg me  19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't see where I said I was referencing any policy, guideline, or widely accepted consensus. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * He also didn't do what you described, he cleaned it up and ended up redirecting it back in May. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-pinging ; can you clarify what KFM removed that shouldn't have been? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Cleaning up... and then redirecting. Do you not see how that's a problem? If there's enough to keep an article, cleaning up trivial mentions is fine. If there's not and it will eventually be redirected or AfD'ed, then minimizing the coverage in the article prior to redirecting it--even if the editor doesn't think it amounts to significant coverage--is a WP:FAIT issue. All discussions should have the best evidence, and if editors think something should be deleted, then it is incumbent upon them to make sure their conduct with respect to the article has been with the cleanest possible hands. Why am I explaining this to editors who should know better? Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * , have you considered that the goal of the initial cleanup was to figure out *what* sources could be used for notability and then see what else is out there before BLAR-ing it? It's a lot harder to work on a foundation with all the rotten wood in the way. Assume some good faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seriously. It's honestly shocking that this position is being taken. What should KFM have done if the content was largely falsely attributed to a source? Or a complete misrepresentation of what the source said? What benefit is there to leaving up bad content besides misleading people? The fact that your reply did not demonstrate a single specific piece of content removed that should not have been removed tells me one of two things: either you didn't check to verify what KFM removed was even remotely valuable, which would make me think that you have extremely poor judgment, or you checked it, saw nothing of value removed, and were being dishonest in your reply. For an experienced editor, it's concerning that I'm arriving at either negligence or dishonesty. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting any of those possibilities to be the case? No? Then leave the WP:WAX arguments out of discussion, please. The answer to the question I suppose you believe is a "gotcha" is that of course I didn't check any of the sources, because it wasn't my job to. For that matter, I'm not an expert in video game character notability, so much as I am in editor conduct. Could have added "Full disclosure: I removed a bunch of lousy sources back in May" or words to that effect in the nomination, even pointing to the diffs like I did, but didn't. If you think nominators are responsible to search the Internet for sources, but not discuss sources they themselves previously removed prior to the nomination, I'd be really curious as to why. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Non-experts may participate, of course, but I would highly recommend that non-experts think twice before making baseless accusations of user conduct without even verifying whether there is a conduct issue to be found. This is not "editor who joined in 2008" caliber, aim higher than this. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Who's the non-expert on user conduct? Not me. Who joined in 2008? Not me. Who are you even talking to? I certainly don't need your approval or consent to document a user conduct issue, although it is curious how much pushback you and others are giving me, defending the suboptimal nominator conduct. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. Zero WP:SIGCOV.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 10:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep As said before. And by the way it wasnt just Alisa's page which was entirely deleted/merged but so was Asuka Kazama and Lili, all female characters from the Tekken series around the same time as Alisa's. Unfortunately there wasnt someone who decided to have an argument first like I did for Alisa, to have discussion page about a deletion/merge at the time?--Crossswords (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I would think there would be enough products, dolls and merchandise where most characters would be notable. Seeyouincourt (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WP:GNG, notability needs to be established via reliable secondary sources, and the existence of merchandise does not fulfill that. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a valid metric for proving notability. Sergecross73   msg me  02:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a WP:SPA that arrived today.   scope_creep Talk  08:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * An admin unrelated to this has blocked them for being a SOCK. Sergecross73   msg me  13:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.