Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Williams (Tekken)


 * 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 Tekken. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Anna Williams (Tekken)

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

Given resources in the current revision are databases and list articles. Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. Merko (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Merko (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge Anna seems to be a possible breakout character. I found this but there might be more or not that much. If more WP:SIGCOV are found besides listicles, I will cast my vote to keep them.  GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 22:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see this as a similar case to Quan Chi, where Anna Williams should and likely does have the coverage. It's also worth noting she kind of co-starred with Nina in the game Death by Degrees, where she had her own mode. However, I have not found anything besides what GlatorNator posted above. How did you find that, by the way? That link won't even show up in the Google searches I've been doing. MoonJet (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree about Quan Chi being notable. Anna might be but wasn't sure yet. The source does appear on Google. Not sure why is doesn't show yours. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 07:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Nominator here, I found three sources on Proquest that mention this character in apparent sections:   Whether the coverage is significant is up for debate. Merko (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Account "through your library or institution" required to access ProQuest articles. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  07:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you can get access with your Wikimedia account, details here Merko (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  18:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak merge Seems like they should be notable, but there is not enough SIGCOV. Ping me if more is found. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Snowball comment Well there's a first, but I'm going to ask that this be withdrawn for now, I do agree that it feels...off...that she wouldn't be notable and looking at the above even the nominator may have possibly found some sources. I don't want to "other stuff exists", but this might be a lot lower on spectrum of articles that should get the nuke for now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak merge Existing reception is pedestrian with the usual "sexiest babe" and "we want her for X game" stuff, which doesn't really tell us why she's notable. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  18:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If a popular Tekken character like Anna doesn't have much, then I guess the same goes to King (Tekken). GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 04:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * From the looks of it, no. Can't really find any SIGCOV to speak of for King either. I'd wager almost all Tekken characters with standalone articles are deep in "FANDOM article" territory, besides maybe obvious main characters like Jin Kazama who seem to possibly have scholarly coverage about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Based on two of the sources found in here. The one provided by GlatorNator and the first one provided by Merko are good starting points. MoonJet (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The one where Merko provided were just passing mention, but anyway it seems like im on my way for this afd to be neutral. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 10:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole article was about her though, so it's not a "passing mention." However, I do agree that Anna could have a bit more (plus the benefit of the doubt she has more sourcing out there), hence I only went with a "weak keep." It seems that we're all in agreement here that this is a borderline case. MoonJet (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge: per above. Fails GNG, Sources don't support notability for a stand alone article.  // Timothy :: talk  07:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per WP:GNG. Existing sources are not enough to prove notability. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:32, 5 May 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.