Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astaroth (Soulcalibur)


 * 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 Soulcalibur characters. While there were comments arguing for keeping the article, these comments were largely addressing the fact that a GA was taken to AfD instead of another venue, or did not directly address the concerns about the sourcing issues that the merge rationales presented. Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Astaroth (Soulcalibur)

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

I hate to nominate a GA, but there is no notability here, nearly all of the sources are primary. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Video games,  and Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm sorry, but this is flat out absurd. If you feel notability is an issue tagging it with the appropriate templates would have been better or taking it to a GAR.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GAR does not deal with notability. And AFD is definitely a system to debate notability, that is why 90 percent of AFD nominations are made. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * GAR can absolutely deal with notability if you feel an article does not meet sufficient standards and you have issue with the sources used and feel they aren't up to current standards. Additionally cleanup tags exist for a reason. As it stands personally while I feel the article is weaker, it has enough material and courage to stand fine on its own, and the recent trend of using AfDs to force discussions (i.e. Reptile (Mortal Kombat)'s is troubling to say the least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The "recent trend" has nothing to do with removing GA articles. It is just because fighting game characters who do not meet guidelines get noticed. Additionally, the Reptile one was not a problem, just a discussion on notability that decided that the article was notable. I do not believe this is notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See the discussion here if you do not believe me about GAR and notability concerns. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are correct in your assertion that GA standards and notability are unrelated. That said, this is a relatively detailed article, so a vague "it's not notable" nomination is less than ideal. You should be more detailed in explaining why it's not notable, what's wrong with all the sourcing present, etc. You're not likely to get much input when you put all the work on everyone else to wade through all that. Sergecross73   msg me  15:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My specific problem is that most of the references are primary, which does not contribute to notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself, but you've failed to persuade the first 3 people to read your nomination. You'd think that's not a good sign... Sergecross73   msg me  15:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The withdrawal has been undone. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. Notability seems to have already been vetted, and independent sources clearly exist, even if primary sources are somewhat overly relied upon. BD2412  T 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination. I missed some sources when I originally looked at the reflist. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. Sorry. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge To List of Soulcalibur characters. Contrary to the previous arguments which give no evidence, GA articles can in fact be subject to AfD, I have done so multiple times. GA has nothing to do with notability and standards change over time, with this article having become a GA in 2009, fairly early in Wikipedia's lifespan when fictional cruft was still welcomed. Right now it only has trivial coverage and lacks secondary sources with significant mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources in the reception section pases GNG. Problems with "fiction cruft" (which I assume means 'in universe' information) isn't relevant when there is clearly other things in the article that show coverage.★Trekker (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost all reception sources are passing mentions in reviews, which is the sort of typical thing for a list of characters, but can't support a page. There's one mention in a book, but I can't access it - I doubt it's major though, considering it's used to cite only a single sentence. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters. Sourcing standards have greatly increased since this GA was listed in 2009. No, GA criteria has no bearing on notability. I'll affirm the above assessment that the majority of sources are primary, showing no external notability for the character apart from the series. In the remaining sources, I don't see what can be construed as significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, nevertheless out-of-universe coverage. . . These are passing mentions that do not confer notability of the character somehow removed from the game itself. The standard alternative to deletion in this case is to merge to the existing parent list's section on the topic. czar  04:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters, focusing on what reliable, secondary sources have written about the character. I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources to meet the GNG. Woodroar (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Soulcalibur characters. This is a tough one but the reception just isn't there. The NY Times source is particularly a letdown, as it's a miracle for characters of this ilk to even get that kind of coverage, but alas Astaroth has only a passing mention. Plus, it was GA'd way back in 2009, which is practically a lifetime in Wikipedia years. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  05:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak merge to List of Soulcalibur characters per Czar. The reception is built on WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, and there isn't enough to support an article once you remove those. I say "weak" only because WP:GAR would have been the preferred channel to start, but I don't put much weight on GAs from 2009, when the review process commonly ignored major issues. Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and we don't let procedure get in the way of a consensus about content. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge The standard has increased unlike before. Thou, the article is not poorly written, the reception was full of trivial. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 22:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the other keep !votes. I know that notability is technically not required for a GA, but as pointed out, this probably should have gone through GAR first. But other than that, the sourcing does seem to cover important aspects of the character. MoonJet (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:GAR. Good article reassessment only assesses whether the article meets the six good article criteria. Many common problems (including not meeting the general notability guideline, the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I realize the GameRant articles aren't considered 'bueno' by some editors, but they are at least giving feedback on the character. That said also added another study by Rachel Hutchinson discussing his design and reactions to it. I'm digging through for more at this time while I wait for FGO to update.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I was mentioning to Moon in the Quan Chi discussion that it's rather frustrating sites considered situational like Game/Screen Rant are sometimes the only ones who will give the time of day to lesser known VG characters. Any legitimate character coverage from these sites should be considered admissible in establishing notability, as long as it's not under something like "12 Worst Hangnails in Gaming." sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  16:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the rare times I agree with you in these AFDs, Beemer69. The weird thing is that discussion on these sites was already leaning towards "they can be used for notability, so long as they aren't from listicles," so I have no idea why the person who opened the discussion concluded that the consensus is that these sites are not to be used for establishing notability at all. MoonJet (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly I feel it something is being said and citeable, and not a passing mention, they should be used from a source like that. Question is with them and the new study, how is Astaroth looking to folks?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The unfortunate reason is that these sites are content farms. These articles aren't the product of subject matter experts writing within their field or even a nuanced study of something they've researched for weeks. They're just content pumped out to feed algorithms. We shouldn't trust it (because there's no regard for fact-checking or accuracy) and we certainly shouldn't reward it, either. Woodroar (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish there was more out there in terms of viable reception, but it’s nonetheless looking much better; good work. Not sure how much time is left but I’m contemplating changing my vote. 'Fraid I'm sticking with merging after further investigation. I appreciate KFM's efforts in adding the document but the pre-existing sources are the roadblock. The content from Tim Rogers and the NY Times add nothing, while one paragraph is devoted to his gameplay than the actual character. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  20:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Game Rant, Screen Rant and The Gamer all have fact-checking policies. MoonJet (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, nobody is debating that GameRant/ScreenRant/TheGamer check their facts. That's why they're situational, not unreliable. The main issue is that, being content farms, they write about everything. The notability guideline usually relies on the fact that news sites have a minimum threshold of noteworthiness, so it's impossible to tell if something is notable just by having been written about there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The question is, in this particular instance do you feel it augments the other references to provide enough notability or not? I really feel it should pass with the second Hutchinson study added there also.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Soulcalibur characters - While there are tons of sources cited in this article, the majority of them are primary (posts/interviews on the official Soul Calibur or Bandai Namco websites, official twitter accounts, etc) or things like product listings. And the non-primary sources are not significant coverage on this character in specific. Many are, as noted by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ above, just brief mentions of the character in general reviews of the games as a whole, and some are literally nothing more than the character's name mentioned once. When a couple of listicles that have short dedicated entries on Astaroth are the best "sources" included, that is not a great sign for notability. And searching for additional sources outside of what is already in this article does not produce any better results - outside of routine coverage of character announcements and game guides, there is no significant coverage on Astaroth outside of mentions in general coverage of the games as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 21:28, 19 April 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.