Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balthier




 * 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 Characters of Final Fantasy XII. The arguments for keep were found to be unpersuasive, but the arguments for deletion didn't quite have the upper hand. A merge seems the most appropriate compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Balthier

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

Just like Articles for deletion/Soma Cruz, despite being a GA article, the sourcing standards have increased and the article clearly lacking WP:SIGCOV, and it contains mostly about the game itself not the character (at reception section). Again, GA criteria have no bearing on notability. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Characters of Final Fantasy XII. There is one Destructoid source that could be called WP:SIGCOV, but the article does not have multiple sources that prove Balthier is standalone notable. Great deal of WP:REFBOMB going on with small quotes from reviews. I expect Fran to follow shortly, unless someone can track down much better sources for her. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like Fran is fine or just barely notable. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 10:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and I'll note that RS interviews with an author about a fictional element he or she created may not contribute to notability about the author, but do contribute to notability about the fictional element. GNG is met. Also, deleting or redirecting GA or other reviewed content is inappropriate; do GAR first. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm not sure how that could be the case, if it's entirely a Q and A session with a designer answering questions. There is no "secondary" in that source - it makes no sense how it could contribute to notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Do GAR first" is also not Wikipedia policy. There is nothing about notability in the GA criteria. I'm not asking you to believe me, you are free to read it yourself and confirm that. See also the Meta Knight GAR I tried to do, that was shot down because notability has nothing to do with GA. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS is the governing policy for authors talking about their creations, as they are experts and independent of the topics. The "secondary" is based on the outlet publishing an interview, assuming it exercises editorial control. As far as "Do GAR first", I did not say it was a policy, I said it was inappropriate. I maintain that Wikipedia should adopt this stance as policy, per WP:CCC, and as a GA reviewer reject the assertion that notability is not part of the GA criteria. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I would actually like the GA criteria to include that the article must not be of questionable notability. It only makes sense that "one of Wikipedia's best articles" would be backed up by reliable sources. But that doesn't mean it's current policy so I fail to see how it's "inappropriate". If the nominator went to GAR with this article they'd simply be told to do an AfD. You're basically saying "because I want it, I will tell people incorrect rules". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS says in its first sentence "anyone can self publish a book..." That means authors are not necessarily experts on anything. There's nothing that says an author is a subject matter expert. That seems to have come out of thin air too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't see that an author is an expert in his or her own creations, I'm not sure how to help you understand that. And if you can't parse my is ought statement, again, not sure how to help you. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge I feel given a lot of the arguments about standard increasing here are swaying my opinion, but a bigger problem is that most of the reception seems to be talking about him and Fran as a pair, rather than discussing him as a stand alone character. To that end I don't think Merging Fran into him is the answer: she definitely has some reception I recall through the years, especially on the subject of sexualized designs. But him by himself...I feel it needs more to keep it afloat. I'm sorry.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This line of thinking seems to suggest that all characters that are a part of a "duo" must either be merged together or else will fail because sources talk about them as a pair. I don't think that's the correct position to take. Character relationships and dynamics are an important aspect of a character and I think demanding that valid reception be solely restricted to when a character is discussed as an isolated entity is not the right move. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Splitting up characters who are normally seen as part of a group falls under WP:OVERLAP. If it would create a large amount of redundant text to discuss them apart rather than together, they should be combined. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Characters of Final Fantasy XII - Agreed with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ that the reference section is largely being WP:REFBOMBed with cherry picked quotes to give an illusion of greater coverage than what is actually there. The references that are not just quotes from the games themselves or obvious churnalism (i.e. the "Top X Character" type sources) are general reviews or coverage on the games, with nothing but brief mentions of Balthier as part of that general coverage. The amount of significant coverage on Balthier specifically that would justify a separate article from the main character list just isn't there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess it has the same problem with the article Vaan (Final Fantasy), nominated it also for afd. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 02:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reception is not the only possible source of SIGCOV. Outlets reporting on development info is an indication that the outlet considers that information noteworthy. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between primary sources (interviews) and secondary sources (reception). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but what sources are you actually referring to that contain development info that actually has any significant coverage on Balthier? Because its certainly none of the sources that are currently cited in the article. The interviews from IGN and Siliconera barely mention him, with the latter being especially egregious if you look at the actual context in which his name is mentioned in it. Even the one interview with the English VA for the character is almost entirely on the career of that actor, and has very little about the character or "development" of Balthier. If you are going to argue that there is significant coverage on Balthier in this regards, you are going to need to actually provide some examples, because the current sources are, as I mentioned above, just a mess of WP:REFBOMBing of a whole bunch of extremely trivial mentions of the character. Rorshacma (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Lets try and find consensus between Keep and Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the rationales provided by Axem Titanium and Jclemens. The OP's argument to support the deletion rationale presented here is unconvincing, and I must say, seems to reflect their personal opinion on what should be notable or otherwise. There is a vague allusion to a lack of significant coverage, but no proper analysis on how the third party sources cited in an otherwise rated GA article does not provide substantial content. Haleth (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Jclemens and Axem Titanium's rationales are both based entirely on the argument that the interviews cited in the article count as significant coverage of the "development" of the character, and I already typed out a rather lengthy comment as to why those have no significant coverage of the character. But if you want more analysis, then sure. This interview contains precisely one mention of the character, as the response of one of the devs being asked who his favorite character in the game is. Its less than a paragraph of "information" and not significant coverage. This interview is especially bad - aside from one random sentence mentioning Balthier's name in a sentence otherwise about Vaan, the only other mention of Balthier is the devs recounting a story about an amusing glitch that happened during development in which Balthier just happened to be in the party for. That has absolutely nothing to do with the character, and I think it goes without saying that two sentences is not significant coverage. Finally, this interview, with the English VA for the character, is almost entirely about the actor, not the character. Only a couple of the questions actually directly relate to the character - in fact the only one in which he actually discusses the character in any kind of detail is for the single question of asking how he feels that he is similar to the character he portrayed. Again, not remotely significant coverage. And of course, the nom, myself and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ all already pointed out that nearly all of the actual reliable sources being used in the Reception section are general reviews of the game that are having the one-to-two sentences that mention Balthier cherry picked out to give the illusion of greater coverage than there actually is - actually looking at these reviews shows that none of them contain actual significant coverage of Balthier specifically. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Just oodles of the most trivial mentions possible, masquerading as massive amounts of sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per other keep voters. Sufficient sourcing exists, so a spin-off article is fine.  SnowFire (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not exist, though. Rorshacma demonstrated in pretty heavy detail that they are all trivial. I shall remind people that AfD is not a vote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:11, 10 June 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.