Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast physics


 * 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Breast physics

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

This is a big mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Almost all of the citations are opinion pieces, and the ones that aren't tend to mention specific games, in which case any controversy about said boob physics could be covered on the relevant pages. Jtrainor (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as creator. This is a very ... wobbly ... nomination. It does not make clear, and it is also not apparent, which statements in the article are supposed to be original research (by synthesis or otherwise), in that they are not properly sourced. Quite the opposite is true. Almost all statements in the article are attributed to WP:VGRS-compliant sources, which are also not "opinion pieces". For instance, the most-cited source is a descriptive Kotaku article which covers breast physics in various games and the technology behind it; it is neither labeled nor written as an "opinion piece". Even if there were instances of OR in the article, the nomination does not establish why that could not be fixed by appropriate editing. Covering the breast-bouncing in the individual game articles would be beside the point: this is an article about an, er, stylistic aspect of an array of video games, covered as such by the sources, that would be out of place in an article about any particular game. I note also that the nomination (appropriately) does not contest the topic's notability.  Sandstein   20:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, the problems alleged could be fixed by editing and are not a reason to delete. Notability has not been challenged. Jehochman Talk 23:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, extension of Male gaze. Panda619 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even the Guardian has deigned to notice this topic. (Leonard, Raj and especially Howard approve. Sheldon is on the fence.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Sandstein and Jehochman, both of whom have pointed out that the nomination rationale does not actually challenge the topic's notability. A "big mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR", besides the fact that it is a statement of subjective opinion and the impression I get that the nominator is confusing editorialized opinions published by reliable secondary sources with Wikipedia's definition of original research, is not a ground for deletion under any existing guideline or policy. Haleth (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and trout the nom for repeatedly doing drive-by AfD nominations without any attempt at a WP:BEFORE or to assert any valid deletion rationale. And I say this as someone who tends to lean deletionist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gender representation in video games as I have previously proposed. The problem with this article is that breast physics are only notable in the context of being used to oversexualize female game characters. There isn't an argument for deletion here at all, but whether it needs a standalone article is dubious.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This was already discussed at Talk:Gender_representation_in_video_games. "Breast physics" is a discrete and notable subtopic that merits a subarticle per WP:SS. The current content would be undue detail in Gender representation in video games, especially as concerns the technical aspects of the topic. I disagree with a merger.  Sandstein   11:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. When the major sources of an article directly address the topic in general (not a specific instance) then the claim of SYNTH is ridiculous. No explanation of what other WP:OR is supposed to be in the article was given, so presumably that is just a restatemnet of SYNTH. In the absence of a challenge to the reliability of the sources, I can't see that this nomination has a case at all. SpinningSpark 12:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep a quick lookup of sources suggest some relatively high quality sources and an abundance of “pop media” ones. Juxlos (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - High-quality, well-sourced article relevant to and independently notable from the topic of sexuality in video games. - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  22:14, 15 December 2021 (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.