Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrom


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Chrom

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

After extensive research, I've not found adequate sigcov about Chrom himself. At present, the article is mainly reliant on listicles, passing mentions, and low-quality coverage (such as Chrom getting a fan-made butt mouse pad). I'm not opposed to its existence inherently, but unless some serious work is done, I'm not convinced that Chrom passes notability requirements. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I'm having hard time to find valuable sources to use for Chrom. I'm afraid it's mostly listicles and such, but it semes doable now. GlatorNator  (ᴛ) 19:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 15.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 19:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am not sure I follow the nom's rationale. If their position is to not oppose the article's existence, then why nominate it for an AfD? The definition of significant coverage is quite clear according to the guidelines: more than a trivial mention, but does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and that is the case with the nature of the article's sourcing. Merging is a viable solution if a List of Fire Emblem Awakening characters styled after List of Fire Emblem Fates characters actually exists, and it could work because I've encountered scattered discussions in numerous discussions about various other Awakening characters over the years. Haleth (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I tend to not be a mergist, and if provided with new sources to show notability, I'd be amenable to having my mind changed. I nominated it because I do not feel that the article passes muster. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that cultural impact goes beyond just fan-made merchandise: the character has stayed relevant by consistently ranking in fan polls over the course of a decade, as well as numerous appearances outside of the original Awakening game in related Fire Emblem media or other games published by Nintendo due to fan demand as opposed to Nintendo company policy, an indicator that the character may be independently notable from an objective PoV. Haleth (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be surprised if there wasn't more coverage on him out there, between his recurring roles in Fire Emblem and Smash Bros, especially considering how popular both series have been in the past decade. Sergecross73   msg me  22:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you can find more coverage, I would be delighted to !vote keep. I'm no fan of merging. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fire Emblem Awakening. Chrom does not evidently have SIGCOV in reliable sources. The Reception is long, but cobbled together from numerous trivial mentions, and does not support substantive commentary on him. It would be more accurate to call the sources discussing the story at large than one character from it, and they are more relevant to the game itself. I would suggest that interested parties endeavor to recreate List of Fire Emblem Awakening characters, which was boldly redirected some years ago, in a manner that passes WP:LISTN, and adding commentary on Chrom to it instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. While some of the sources are left to be desired, I think there's enough significant coverage for this article to be considered generally notable. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

*Merge Honestly the reception section is big...but it's all trivial. Also going to point out that fan polls while they can be cited shouldn't be leaned on for notability: often they're either primary sources, and there's no proof that the poll itself was accurate as these often don't have safeguards to prevent tampering. That's been pointed out multiple times through the years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC) Abstaining per discussion with Sergecross. Can always revisit it later if need be.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Merge and Redirect. The nominator's position has changed so there is no longer support for deletion, there just has to be more of a consensus on what should happen next. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is this good source not being used in the article. . I do not know if this changes anything. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Primary source (interview). Can be used, but doesn't count for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But it is from a developer that did not create the character and is not from Nintendo or Intelligent Systems. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sakurai is "not from Nintendo"? Given the ludicrous amount of Nintendo characters Smash Bros uses, it would be safe to call Sora LTD a first party Nintendo studio. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * But it factually is not, Sora Ltd. is literally not owned by Nintendo, despite some level of association between them. (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as nominator. Done some thinking, reevaluating. I'm not 100% sure if it clears Ghosts'N Goblins, but I'm not sure enough that it fails it to endorse merging it. This is only compounded by multiple editors declaring their interest in addressing notability issues. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Chrom seems to have barely enough sources to pass WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Please post the WP:THREE best secondary sources for the article then? I'm perfectly fine with keeping the article if said sources exist, but nobody has said what they actually supposedly are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. I am not impressed by what I see in the reception, which appears lenghty but is built from sources that don't seem to pass WP:SIGCOV. There's a ton of listicles and such. Per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, I'd be happy to review the THREE best sources - ping me if they are provided. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep per nom, although a merge would also be fine. It is always worth considering that that all policies and guidelines draw their authority, if any, from WP:IAR, and thus that no guideline should be followed if it no longer serves the original purpose that made it a valid invocation of IAR against IAR. Anyway, I think a detailed character list is probably the optimal solution here. But since (a) such a list does not currently exist, (b) this character is evidently significant enough that it should be covered in some fairly substantial fashion somewhere, (c) the existing article is quite substantial and appears to serve the user and the project reasonably well, and (d) if merged and not considerably downsized there would be some SIZESPLIT issues anyway, I can see no great value or urgency in what would amount to a merely formal rearrangement of coverage. -- Visviva (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I just find it hard to believe that the coverage for this level of character doesn't exist out there somewhere. It's close now, and it's a rare case where I'd rather attempt to build up what we've already got for now, and revisit it down the line. Sergecross73   msg me  20:19, 29 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.