Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastion (Overwatch)


 * 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 to Characters of Overwatch. Selectively. Star  Mississippi  02:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Bastion (Overwatch)

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

Fails WP:GNG as a standalone character - should not have been split off from the main character list. Most mentions of Bastion are trivial or extremely "geeky" and only relevant to fans (such as the articles about Bastion being temporarily cut from the game) rather than regarding Bastion as a character (which makes sense, since Bastion is one of the single least developed characters in the game). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge at minimum to Characters of Overwatch. The reception section is rather weak and without any real dev detail, the rest is trivial gameplay elements that don't meet GNG. --M asem (t) 15:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have fleshed out the reception section and added some development detail, both in regards to Bastion's story/character elements and his gameplay. Soulbust (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree with you saying most mentions are "trivial". Calling sources only relevant to fans is confusing to me as most articles on Wikipedia present information that are only relevant to certain/niche audiences, and calling them "geeky" is more confusing as I don't quite understand why that matters? Taken to an extreme, calling a source "geeky" to state it isn't suitable is borderline "I don't like it." For me, Bastion separates himself from characters (such as Roadhog, if an example is needed) that I would agree would need to be fully within the Characters of Overwatch article, as his gaemplay design has actually been extremely redesigned/overhauled throughout OW and OW2's history and a good amount of the character's reception is tied to that gameplay design (and this is evident as per the sourcing found in the article). Bastion's out of game appearances are also not to be overlooked, I would say, as The Last Bastion and the reception to that short helps further establish GNG.
 * I will try to find further sourcing to flesh out the reception section ........ but this article is quite new — I literally got a notification of its inclusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games 25 minutes before the inclusion of the article here at AfD... which I kinda find disheartening. Soulbust (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Deletion/merging is not hatred of a subject or topic and shouldn't be confused as such. On the contrary, it's not wanting to see that topic described in a lackluster way and having the best possible version of something. If an article can only be filled with "junk", it's not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers. It's just having an article for the sake of having it.
 * As a character who only talks in beeps and boops, he basically has almost no character development outside a single animated short, that isn't a good sign for notability.
 * It is unfortunate you were disheartened, but clearly if you just wanted to add to Bastion's sources on Wikipedia, the list entry was a fine place to do so. You unilaterally made the decision to split Bastion off, and decisions have consequences if people disagree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to imply that I have described the character in a lackluster way, then I would have to disagree with that. I think the character being a (functionally) non-verbal robot is irrelevant in regard to if he can be developed. There are plenty of characters who are mute, silent, etc. It means nothing as far as if they can be developed or not. The short isn't some non-discussed thing either (there are plenty of sources that help establish its notability/inclusion in the context of this individual character article).
 * Also, I believe your "decisions have consequences" wording seems like rather intense and stern wording for something like creating a Wikipedia article on a legitimate subject. Soulbust (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge to Characters of Overwatch - Agreed that this should not have been split out of the main character article for an individual article. The actual sources in the reception section are trivial mentions, largely being reviews of the Overwatch games themselves with a few mentions of this particular character as part of those overall reviews. Most of the other sources being used are things like game guides or just routine reports on the current state of the game (the "character was temporarily removed" and "character was re-added back" type articles, as well as reports on balance/patch notes). And then, there's quite a few sources here that seem to just be WP:REFBOMBING, where the character is literally just namedropped in a single sentence. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It keeps being mentioned that I split this article from the main character list. I did not do that in what I am assuming is the conventional way. I wrote it from scratch. For transparency. Soulbust (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, regardless, you knew the list entry did exist, given that it was a redirect to the character list for 7 years now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah obviously, but I didn't consult that list going into this. Soulbust (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comments I want to reply/expand on a couple points brought up. First, the topic of splitting. I didn't consult the Characters of Overwatch list to split the Bastion character off into its own article. This is at least somewhat important because it is 1) mentioned in the nomination as something that "shouldn't" have happened; and 2) later mentioned in the context as something that isn't helpful to readers ("If an article can only be filled with "junk", it's not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers. It's just having an article for the sake of having it.")
 * Using this tool, this article from infobox through categories is 19,961 characters and the section on Bastion in the Characters of list/article is 4,104 characters. Obviously referencing/categories/other formatting account for some of this nearly 5x increase in size. However, it would be disingenuous to assert that the (still) large increase (when excluding that formatting) in size is all "trivial" information. Again, I'm saying what I'm saying now from the perspective of not having looked/consulted/copy+pasted the Characters of section during the making of this stand-alone article (or really at any point for a meaningful amount of time, for reasons I will touch on later). This article adds ~14/15K bytes and about 30 new references. I want to be very clear here. I am not arguing about for a sheer numbers have to automatically justify notability take here. I am only mentioning those numbers to state that there would be a negative effect if merged into the Characters list. Because either we merge most/all of this and create a huge chunk on Bastion (I would argue, perhaps an undue weight chunk). Or we merge minor/no amounts of this and lose a lot of valuable information that only makes sense to include in this such separate article (I disagree with opinions on how information about gameplay elements are trivial and would like to hear why that information is being considered trivial so that I can make some improvements in that regard).
 * Now, the issue of a separate article being "lackluster" or filled with "junk". I don't know what could be considered junk here. This article includes: 1) Development information about the character's characterization and place in Overwatch lore, described and cited in the least fancruft-way possible. Then, 2) Information about the character's development in regards to gameplay elements during the original game's beta period, then post-launch (2017), then OW2's pre-launch and beta period (2021), and that game's post launch (2022); with 2b) information about the character's art/visual design, again presented in a non-fancruft manner.; 3) the character's appearances in video games and other media; and 4) reception to the character. That all might seem obvious to you (whomever is reading) and that's because it is. It's obvious, but more importantly it's tight. There's no distracted or out-of-place "junk" tangent that's included here to try and stretch this out to a ridiculous degree.
 * And so, back to this article being perhaps "not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers." I think sometimes in these sorts of AfD discussions we forget that us editors are also readers. The reason why I didn't consult the Characters of Overwatch listing/article in making this Bastion one is because in the past when I've tried to read it for other purposes (i.e. while playing the game, just to look at it, etc.), I've found it really bloated and hard to navigate. Its hard to read. There's no real visual component (whether it be an image, colors, table/chart related to an overview or something) that helps its reading flow. It's just chunk after chunk of text. And some of them, I feel are actually too long for such a listing yet still lack information that could be included in a separate article. I'd actually be in argument of shortening the segments on that listing in favor of expanding/splitting to separate articles (of course, where applicable; like I don't really think Ramattra or Sojourn, for example, would be able to stand-alone with their own article, at least at this moment). These shortened segments in my mind would cover just the basics that could be covered for every character (date they were introduced/announced, voice actor, the most basic of gameplay elements [i.e. tank/damage/support, their current core abilities {I think the development history/reworking of gameplay abilities would be perfect for Development sections in stand-alone articles}], and the most basic of lore elements [country of origin, occupation, in-universe affiliation]). But in that case, Bastion has things past that, like how the Character listing currently mentions The Last Bastion in the Bastion segment? We could remove that and make it less bloated, because there's a Bastion article that exists now. Maybe the onus to do this sort of clean-up is on someone like me, trying to make this stand-alone article. And I'll be cool with doing that. I think it'd be the sensible thing to do.
 * And finally, I'd like to really better understand where this REFBOMBING takes place, or maybe receive a suggestion on how to improve this article in regards to that. Because, the referencing overwhelmingly includes articles about Bastion in specific in one way or another, or mention the character's place in the lore in a thorough fashion (i.e. Polygon timeline source). The only real exceptions are things that help reference contextual information about the game (i.e. Bastion being a defense and then a damage character but we need a source on the context of when/why that change happened, for example). So I don't see which point in the article in where REFBOMBING comes into play. The Reception article includes sourcing to reviews of the game, yes. But the context is important. Those reviews were at launch, and if in a review of the whole game, a specific character is singled out as being "overpowered" (or at least, in the perception of players as being "overpowered"), then is that not a relevant thing to include in the character's Reception section? Does a source citing that information have to be entirely about Bastion? In these review sources, it's not a trivial name drop, as it's much closer to a contextual point about the character's game play reception.
 * Sorry that this comment was long, but it matters to me to be clear and thorough about this and where I'm coming from on these points. Soulbust (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This whole screed reads like a "no, it is they who are wrong". It's actually rather simple; a character is notable when they have 3 pieces of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources, that actually puts the character in context. So far, the evidence that those exist has not been shown. This Kotaku article is the only one I can find, and a single article is not enough. Cramming a bunch of trivial mentions there will just make it harder to spot anything significant, if there is any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you got that out of what I said, then either you misunderstood/I miscommunicated or you are purposefully ignoring my point. I'm assuming the former. I didn't say anyone was wrong. I pinged the other users who have added to this conversation asking for elaboration and suggestion on how to improve the points they brought up. That sort of improvement discussion is valid and I feel like should have happened in a talk page convo before an AfD got put up almost immediately after WPVG listed this under its weekly new articles posting. But any rate, like I said over on Articles for deletion/Darren Korb, I don't love the idea of WP:THREE because it's arbitrary. But I'll play along. Like you pointed out, this counts as one. Here's two more, and two bonus ones, just in case those three were too Kotaku centric. Soulbust (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree any of those additional ones are SIGCOV. They are either announcements or stats oriented towards fans. And WP:THREE might be arbitrary, but it's the lowest amount where even lackluster sources will still indicate notability. If a couple of fantastic sources exist, a whole article could be based on them; these don't rise to that level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two Kotaku ones I added are stat-based. And them being oriented towards fans shouldn't factor in to whether or not they are considered "significant coverage" because that guideline has no mention of that distinction one way or the other. Soulbust (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned sources are still valid imo, but I think these present perhaps better examples of SIGCOV: this source about his gameplay and how players felt about it, and this source elaborating on character elements (Mar. 2020). Soulbust (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to Characters of Overwatch. The sources above are better examples of reasons why we need to deprecate Kotaku as a source than how this character has found noteworthiness independent of the game. All commentary appears to be in-universe and not about the character's impact external to its in-universe role. czar  04:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are indeed sources that discuss Bastion outside of the Overwatch game. There is also this that discusses the character existing externally to its in-universe role.
 * Your point on Kotaku is understood but it is also moot here, since we currently do list it as a RS over at WP:VG/S. Regardless of this, I did provide multiple non-Kotaku sources in this discussion and the article has plenty of such sources that are used in a relevant and appropriate manner. I made many edits in the past day that help this article achieve the things the WP:42 link you provided is asking for. In this AfD, I've already provided sourcing that is SIGCOV, and that sourcing (as well as the rest of the article's sourcing) is coming from RS'es, and for the the most part it is independent of Blizzard's sourcing, which is only used when applicable (such as using Blizzard's senior designer Michael Chu as a reference on Bastion's original agender design).
 * Are you saying all commentary from the Kotaku sources appears to be in-universe? Because the Reception section has plenty of sourcing (including non-Kotaku sourcing) on how players and writers feel about Bastion out of the franchise's narrative? Soulbust (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the Eurogamer source discusses Bastion? It's mostly summarizing the animated short itself, not making any observations on the character. Unless we're just skimming titles and throwing them out as sources, there's nothing to take from it that improves a standalone article on Bastion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is skimming titles. It improves the article by providing referencing on an animation featuring Bastion. This is rather important for an Overwatch character in particular, considering that Blizzard has yet to release a legitimate story or narrative mode within the video games. The Eurogamer source discussing the short discusses the Bastion animation's narrative and even discusses the way that the game, despite not having a story mode, ties into Bastion's place in the franchise's lore as depicted in the animation (the Eichenwalde map). Perhaps this Verge source is a better example of SIGCOV, but there is pretty obviously independent third-party sourcing from reliable sources that discuss the animation. Yes, this source isn't about the character in a 100% absolute manner, but trying to make that sort of distinction between character and its depiction in media seems rather silly when we are talking about official Blizzard media in which the character is the focus of. SIGCOV sources that discuss the character's depiction in the game that are treated as such SIGCOV, so the same should apply to sources that discuss, in significant coverage, Bastion's depiction in these animations, since they are part of the franchise. Soulbust (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * These last two responses are longer than the entirety of the commentary between the two linked articles. There is generally a lot of Overwatch character content as a character-focused franchise, but these articles don't articulate anything exceptional about this character apart from the fact that a related animated short and Lego kit have been released. That can be covered within an existing article with no loss to the reader. The articles are closer to extended tweets or PR than secondary source commentary. My comment about Kotaku was in relation to the links above: . Re: This unfortunately does not mean much when there's no encyclopedic content within said articles. These articles are closer to tweets in quality and effort than the smallest articles in a reputable publication.  czar  00:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree about the Kotaku sources. The latter two are especially obvious examples of sigcov to me, and the very last one was brought up by the nominator as such so I am not alone in my opinion of that one at least.
 * Regardless, I understand your point about the Bastion having perhaps less articulated sigcov than other characters for a character-focused franchise like Overwatch.
 * I am going to ask you if you believe this source discussing Bastion's visual and gameplay redesign for OW2 is sigcov to you. Because, I guess we've been having trouble agreeing so far with what is and what isn't sigcov and am just wondering if that NME sources crosses the threshold for you. Soulbust (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per Masem. For the few mentions in sources, they don't really get into the reception or significance of this character. It's not the type of coverage you would need to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe I addressed Masem’s point about the reception section. So I don’t understand what you mean about the references not delving into the reception for Bastion? There’s five entire paragraphs filled with references about how vg journalists and players received Bastion. Soulbust (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge some concise and properly sourced material to Characters of Overwatch (no Fancruft) per above.  // Timothy :: talk  01:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And what information that is currently in the article do you consider fancruft? Soulbust (talk) 05:15, 9 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.