Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Jay


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Dee Jay

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikia material, the character's reception section sourcing is down to mostly WP:TRIVIAL mentions and cherry-picked sentences and is a total WP:REFBOMB.

Analysis of the reception sources:
 * Single-sentence mention in a news article
 * Listicle
 * Single-sentence mention in a news article (unreliable source)
 * Single-sentence mention in a review
 * Single-sentence mention in a listicle
 * Mention in a community contributor article (unreliable source)
 * Quote from pro Street Fighter players (unreliable source)
 * 3 more single-sentence mentions in articles

Article evidently fails WP:GNG and is more suitable for a character list.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: While I am not opposed to this article being redirected/merged to an entry on the main list article, and I have not yet looked into whether there is further significant coverage outside of the cited sources, per WP:ATD I am not sure why the nominator has sent this article to an AfD, as opposed to starting a merge discussion on the article's talk page or the talk page of the main list article. The nominator did not expressly say that the subject topic is not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia due to lack of notability, only that it is probably more suitable for a character list, so the intent is not to in fact nominate it for actual deletion? I am using my experience of recent participation in other merge discussions about video game related topics as a reference point. Another thing I feel I should point out, is that the opinions of professional players who have won several notable tournaments and who warrant their own pages as notable public figures on Wikipedia probably do have some weight to them, as subject-matter experts. In this instance, their quoted opinions are attributed by reliable sources (IGN) and are not self published (which still does not diminish their verifiability but does invite more scrutiny). Lastly, the only unreliable source I can detect is the Bitmob Community Writer one. Which news article do you consider to be unreliable? Haleth (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling pro Street Fighter players "subject matter experts" is a stretch. In that case I would definitely be on the same level of "subject matter expert" since I'm a gamer, but you don't see me quoting myself for Reception sections. They aren't gaming critics, their views can't possibly be impartial since they are superfans of Street Fighter.
 * Why nominate for AfD? I agree the name will probably need to be a redirect, but the article content is largely not eminently mergeable. The reception is entirely trivial, the rest is Wikia type material that should not be merged bereft of context.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Except you are not, I presume (unless at least one of the following traits describes the real you): a) someone who plays video games professionally and for a living; and b) winner of at least one major international fighting game tournamen; c) the subject of significant coverage from media publications that cover esports (and as result of that, has a dedicated BLP article on Wikipedia). Justin Wong is all of the above, only that he has not authored a book and had it published like Daigo Umehara as far as I know. Whether they are a superfan or not does not actually invalidate their opinions for metagame analyses, since a pursuit for competitive advantage and actual money is involved (for the record, a lot of the respectable video game journalists out there are themselves self-confessed superfans of their genres of interest). So yes, I believe it is not a stretch at all to call him a subject-matter expert, compared to the other pro gamer quoted in the IGN article. It's no different from us giving more due weight to the opinions of a journalist from The New York Times compared to amateur writers for a community newspaper when it comes to WP:AUD. Anyway, it's a selective Merge for me since I've had time to go and search around for further sourcing for this topic. Haleth (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to comment, it was a little funny to make the comparison between you as a hobbyist gamer citing yourself and a professional SF player being cited through IGN. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect or Merge - Plausible search term, but not independently notable from the games. The reception section is rather awful despite its length. Not only are the sources passing mentions, but they’re not even good passing mentions. There’s nothing of substance at all, half of it isn’t even really reception as much as it’s just mundane comments vaguely about him. It’s a WP:BOMBARD situation for sure. Sergecross73   msg me  16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect somewhere and add reliable information to Billy Blanks? Blanks' article is not that long, and how often do you get a video game character modelled on you? Geschichte (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep and Template the article - Per . Every policy and guideline (including WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NEXIST) directly says not to nominate articles solely based on the quality of sourcing and writing. Wikipedia is not a final draft and the existing References section has no barring on notability. Additionally, AfD isn't a general clean-up page and no criteria for deletion is cited, so these WP:RUBBISH-esque concerns should have been raised somewhere else.  Dark knight  2149  20:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What in the world are you talking about. There’s no violation in procedure here. He said the sourcing is so weak that it fails the WP:GNG. You’ve got some fundamental misunderstandings about AFD if you think bad sourcing/GNG failures aren’t a valid nomination rationale. It’s true that the nominator could have started with a bold redirect or a merge discussion, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with going to AFD either. Redirect or Merge are valid goals and results at AFD. Sergecross73   msg me  00:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Except, if you had read any of the several policies I just listed, you would be aware that the state of sourcing in the article has absolutely nothing to do with GNG. I didn't bring up redirect/merging, but since you mentioned it: those are common results for when the consensus is against deletion, but AfD is specifically for proposing deletion. There are separate processes for proposed redirects and merges. But back on topic, you mention "GNG failures", but I don't see any listed. Just qualms about the current state of the article.  Dark knight  2149  01:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, the way you’re looking at this is backwards and confusing. The nom says the article doesn’t meet the GNG and explains why they think the sources available don’t help meet the GNG because they’re either not reliable or not significant coverage. All extremely valid stuff. If you disagree, fine, but a valid counterpoint would be to provide some better reliable sources significant coverage. Not...whatever it is you’re trying to do here. Your reading of the nomination is very...off. Sergecross73   msg me  03:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, everything I said was valid, so don't speculate on my motives. Second, indeed competence is required and the nomination did nothing to cite a criteria for deletion or address how the article fails GNG. In fact, it says upfront (final paragraph). Literally every "analysis" point I can see is from the current state of sourcing in the article. Sorry, but that's a blatant misunderstanding of GNG. Period. GNG refers only to the existence of coverage, and WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:HANDLE are also relevant here. The concerns raised in the rationale seem textbook WP:RUBBISH, but if you have a valid reason for it failing GNG, I'm waiting to hear it. If this was aiming for a redirect result from the beginning, then I don't know why it wasn't proposed as such, because I responded to this as a deletion thread (because it is one). Based on the concerns raised above, I stand by my vote. Template the article.  Dark  knight  2149  17:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you cannot understand how the GNG works, or how AfDs work in general, then please recuse yourself from them. Competence is required and nonsense such as this "procedural keep" for a perfectly valid AfD just wastes people's time.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel that I have to say something here. I think your harsh comments toward Darkknight2149 are uncalled for. I understand you don't agree with their comments here, or their general PoV during AfD discussions or on the interpretation of GNG, but quite frankly following a year of being actively involved in an area covered by WP:VG has informed me that contrary to the views espoused by some editors here, there really is no universal consensus on what to include or exclude according to the yardstick of GNG after all these years, not even experienced editors. Katherine Maher is spot on in that these days decision making on Wikipedia seems to be all about what everyone involved can agree on, rather then a pursuit for what is objectively true. The recent discussion over video game items or aspects on the VG talk page is a very good example; several editors are showing their editorial biases when they openly express displeasure at what they acknowledge to be technically correct interpretations of GNG with the creation or existence of subject topics they personally find to be irrelevant or frivolous, and expressed their intention to push their PoV further in future discussions. Even your interpretation and understanding on the issue of notability have been called out, rightfully or wrongfully, by other experienced editors over notability disputes involving articles you have created or improved.


 * I believe I brought up some important points to consider, because in instances like Talk:Klobb or Talk:All Ghillied Up (both articles that you created and attempted to bring to GA), the editors who pushed for them to be merged (aka soft deleted) claimed that they don't actually believe that the subject topic should be considered for deletion at all, and when confronted about their approach, they are adamant that what they are doing is procedurally correct. This is in my mind contradictory to the practice by other editors like yourself who opt to test the notability of subject topics through AfD. I also recall reading past discussions where experienced editors have emphasized the fact that AfD actually stand for "articles for deletion" as opposed to "articles for discussion", and that consideration for deletion is the primary focus for these discussions. Are mergers/redirects perfectly valid outcomes for AfD discussions? Absolutely from an WP:ATD perspective. My question would be, if an editor doesn't actually believe that the cited material should be deleted for lack of notability but simply feels that the contents of the article should be merged or redirected, should the article really be sent to AfD solely for the purpose of canvassing opinions on the subject's notability, or is it more appropriate for a merge proposal to be started on the talk page of the subject article or that of the proposed merger destination? I don't expect a satisfactory answer from anyone for a simple AfD like this, but do consider my commentary on the situation and the constant back-and-forth disagreements about the interpretation of GNG which is a fact of life in this community (if we can call it that). Haleth (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with people voting "Keep" so don't take it as intolerance of people's positions. This was purely due to the Wikilawyering deployed by him on this and other AfDs. Rather than simply state a position, he prefers to misinterpret policy to attempt to overturn the entire AfD itself. So, again, if it was just a "Keep: I think this article is actually notable because of X and Y", I'd have no issue.
 * In response to your question, I think an AfD is merited if you will throw out a large portion of the article content if redirected/merged, to the point it would be a soft delete anyway. A merge discussion in my eyes is when you will conserve a large chunk of the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my interpretation and stance as well. If someone has a valid keep stance, so be it. I’m just a passerby editor with no stake in this article. My irritation is strictly with this “procedural keep” nonsense. Not only is it wrong, it’s a waste of everyone’s time, because such an effort would, best-case scenario, merely scrap this discussion in favor of a second revised discussion somewhere that would just lead us to the same result of this article being merged or redirected. Sergecross73   msg me  17:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, no. AfD is not a be-all-end-all page for It's specifically for nominating articles for deletion (requiring an actual criteria for deletion), with redirecting and merging reserved for when the consensus is against the nom. Zxcvbnm accuses me of "misinterpreting" policies (which they likely haven't read), but the irony is that they and Sergecross73 have been trying to stretch the meaning of WP:GNG throughout this thread. No, GNG has nothing to with what's already in the References section, and no, the state of the article (usually) does not make an article deletion-worthy. Wikipedia is not a final draft. Maybe this was intended to be some sort of misplaced redirection proposal, but even if that is the case, don't try to stretch the meaning of GNG to get your way and get snarky when people correct you.  unambiguously goes against every policy and guideline mentioned above, and is even listed in the List of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.   Dark  knight  2149  18:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting people’s time. All you’re doing is bogging down discussion. Which you should not want, because if discussion fizzles out here, there’s a pretty clear consensus to merge/redirect.  Sergecross73   msg me  18:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reason I'm still here is because you are wasting my time with what is increasingly looking like bad faith accusations. You haven't addressed anything I have said in any meaningful way or said anything of substance beyond finger-pointing and griping. Even administrators don't get their way by saying "I disagree with you, stop talking."  Dark knight  2149  19:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not addressing what you’re saying because it’s based entirely around your misinterpretation of the nomination. It doesn’t matter how much you cite if you don’t understand the fundamental situation. It has nothing to do with me being an Admin (of which I have cited zero times in this discussion) and everything to do with the fact that you have no consensus for what you’re trying to do, in fact, there’s been zero other support for a procedural keep. Sergecross73   msg me  21:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that I'm misinterpreting the nomination and I'm misinterpreting policy, but what's egging me is that you haven't explained how. It would have been best to open with that. This is what I can see from the nomination in itself:
 * "Wikia material, the character's reception section sourcing is down to mostly WP:TRIVIAL mentions and cherry-picked sentences and is a total WP:REFBOMB"
 * The first part "Wikia material" is largely subjective, and the second part refers to an inadequacy with the current state of sourcing in a section of the article.
 * "Analysis of the reception sources:"
 * More analysis of in-article material. So far, no deletion criteria or GNG failure is established.
 * "Article evidently fails WP:GNG"
 * Evidently based on what? The analysis of in-article sources and the article's quality? That's all that has been mentioned so far.
 * "is more suitable for a character list."
 * Without establishing a genuine GNG or WP:LISTN-based argument, this is also subjective.
 * "Calling pro Street Fighter players 'subject matter experts' is a stretch. In that case I would definitely be on the same level of 'subject matter expert' since I'm a gamer, but you don't see me quoting myself for Reception sections. They aren't gaming critics, their views can't possibly be impartial since they are superfans of Street Fighter."
 * More critiquing of in-article sources. This doesn't work because notable topics often end up with poorly written, poorly sourced, and poorly put together articles, which is why WP:ATD, WP:HANDLE, WP:NEXIST, and WP:ARTN were put in place.
 * "Why nominate for AfD? I agree the name will probably need to be a redirect, but the article content is largely not eminently mergeable. The reception is entirely trivial, the rest is Wikia type material that should not be merged bereft of context."
 * This reads like further admission that the article was only nominated because the current revision is bad, and the nom assumed that it fails GNG because of it.
 * I have no dog in whether or not this gets redirected, but I do oppose the grounds in which it was nominated. If I'm misinterpreting something, I would need to know what it is.  Dark knight  2149  22:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomination is saying that there are no reliable sources that provide significant coverage to meet the GNG, and a stand-alone article shouldn’t exist. Anything else is overthinking it. Sergecross73   msg me  22:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He says that it evidently doesn't pass GNG based on his analysis of the sources in the article. That's very different from "this topic lacks significant coverage" or anything that would fall under GNG. I keep rereading it to see if I missed something, but I'm just not getting that from this nomination.  Dark knight  2149  02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, thats the sort of thing I mean when I say “overthinking it”. Regardless of nitpicking over that sort of wording, unless someone finds some sourcing, this article has no hope for survival. Sergecross73   msg me  03:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When I say "evidently" I mean "unless someone pulls out a bunch of video game magazines I'm not aware of with massive profiles of Dee Jay" since he is a somewhat older character. However, the name is so common that it's rather hard to search, and pretty unlikely to come up with anything. What I don't mean is "just checking the sources in the article and not ones online", like Darkknight claims. Again, this is an example of the kind of bad faith assumptions he has been making throughout this and other discussions.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is the deletion discussion for this article tense - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge to List of Street Fighter characters, since he does not have a character description at the target. This character does not pass GNG, the reception section is full of trivial passing mentions and the rest of the article is in-universe information, a search brought up nothing better. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actually seen worse in recent AfD discussions. Haleth (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect for failing WP:N. Zxcvbnm sums up my issues with the sources — they all lack significant, in-depth coverage of the character and are largely just passing mentions in articles for other characters or games. I can see him being a plausible search term, but the poor sourcing proves he isn't notable on his own. I have no idea what this "Procedural keep" nonsense is about, not only does it not even apply to this AfD but it doesn't even make any sense (yet the majority of this discussion is about that?). Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 00:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's really just my vote and the replies to it. To summarise:
 * - The point of contention is that inadequate sourcing and poor writing are invalid reasons to nominate something for deletion and do not reflect WP:N.
 * - The counterarguments to this are that GNG is implied and Zxcvbnm may have filed this with a redirect in mind.
 * - My counterpoint to the counterpoint is that the final paragraph of the nomination implies the opposite and that AfD isn't for redirect requests.
 * I'm not going to reply any further though, because it's just getting heated and going in circles.  Dark knight  2149  02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On reading the arguments presented, I agree with Darkknight2149's summary here on the appropriateness of the rationale behind nominating something which the nominator does not genuinely believe should be deleted on the grounds of WP:N. In other words, a merge/redirect outcome should be incidental to the discussion, not the primary goal of canvassing opinions on whether it deserves a standalone article which is what a merge proposal on the relevant talk pages should accomplish.


 * I have no qualms supporting a procedural keep for this article as suggested by Darkknight2149, but Sergecross73 insists that there is no technical error here and it seems to lack support. I suggested merge, with no prejudice to recreate article if better sources are found later down the track, because unlike the nominator I actually believe that large chunks of the developmental info, and some of the reception stuff, should be included on the relevant entry on the list article. I do believe that the subject is notable, but the current level of coverage I could find is spotty with too many false positives in searches, which will not convince editors with hardline standards that the subject warrants a standalone article, and the prose for the list article has ample room after I did some trimming. I am concerned with the accusations of time wasting though, it feels like a circular pattern where both sides calling each other out for bad faith. Don't we all choose to be participants here on Wikipedia out of our own volition, as opposed to an obligation? If you feel that you have better things to do with your time, or you would rather not argue with someone you clearly have a fundamental disagreement of opinion with, maybe don't engage? Haleth (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On a further note and after some time researching the issue, I found this: Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Rename_AFD, and I quote: "The purpose of AfD is in fact to decide whether or not to delete an article. Lesser issues such as mergers or renaming should be discussed on the talk page or at the separate merge and article title forums. Users should be made aware of the very real possibility that the article will in fact be deleted at the end of the discussion (the result for perhaps three-quarters of nominated articles)." The initial rationale provided by the nominator did not actually advocate for outright deletion. An assertion that a topic fails GNG is justification for not having an article on the topic, not a justification for removing that topic from the encyclopedia. So, I have formed a view that there is nothing technically wrong about Darkknight2149 asking a procedural keep, as unusual as it might sound, and any attempts to shut down a conversation discussing a potential fallacy behind the nomination is quite frankly, in bad faith. Haleth (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Zxcvbnm and I appear to have both discovered that AfD was not a way to start a redirect discussion at the same time, so I am a bit surprised that they didn't retain that. Their attitude is also incredibly poor—a ridiculous way to talk to Haleth about something so trivial. Please read WP:AFDEQ and stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you as "wiki-lawyering"; Haleth agrees with you. This is ridiculous. Accusing people of wiki-lawyering and gaming whenever they disagree with you is really not acceptable. Citing policies is not "wiki-lawyering". I disagree with the "procedural keep" stuff, but understand why it’s happened—there's like four different things happening here at once, when one thing could have been discussed on a Talk page... Re: what Darkknight2149 suggested, I've no idea what "template the article" means, and they've said it twice. Templates are predetermined elements which can be included in a page. I don't know what it means to "template" an article. That said, merge the thing. The nominator should have just done what was done to Klobb, and merged it. If that failed, then it goes to the talk page—again, just like with Klobb. In no way was this worth an AfD. ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Current sources are insufficient to sustain the article. The assessment that they are fluff sources is correct. TTN (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Beginning to think that User:Darknight2149 meant "tag" the article with a template. So, sorry about that! I've never seen "Template the article!" used, and the nomenclature is definitely 'tag'. That said, while the article does have some absolutely fine sources, there's still no reason not to merge it in with List of Street Fighter characters and preserve the good ones. Does Zxcvbnm think this process needs to be repeated for every other bit character in List of Street Fighter characters? I feel like the answer is no, and it shouldn't have happened with this one... ImaginesTigers (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep the character is notable as one of the only three black characters in the early 1990s, two of which were from Street Fighter, and all three of which were from fighting games. I don't think that a merge is appropriate because it would lose the context of how the character was conceived by the developers which provides important context. That context is that one of the few black characters from that era was designed to explicitly address the lack of black characters in that specific series, with a seeming obliviousness of a lack of black characters in the rest of the game industry. Deleting this information does a tremendous disservice to our encyclopedia as a way to learn about how character designs have evolved, for better and for worse. I say that with some awareness that several references are short mentions but I believe that the notability is established by how many references there are, and that they do verify Dee Jay as a historically important character. (Note: an editor tried to remove the verified information that I added while ironically accusing me of removing content.) Archrogue (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "the character is notable as one of the only three black characters in the early 1990s." That's great, so where's the sources that offer significant, independent, and in-depth coverage on him? Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 23:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They've been added to the article now. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Enough coverage total. Enough valid content to fill its own article.   D r e a m Focus  03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I see a full length character article with lots of coverage. I know the goalposts on notability and significant coverage are always open to discussion, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that lots of independent sources doesn't always establish notability. But on top of at nearly twenty-odd sources, there are some that cover this character for a full page or section. And the reception section has an entire paragraph about his historic importance, and historicity within the industry is the highest bar of notability that a character can achieve. Merging would be like killing the baby and preserving the bathwater: the best parts of this article are the paragraphs about his development, reception, and legacy, none of which would fit in the bloated list of more than 90 characters. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Archrogue has since introduced new sources into the article. I am withdrawing my position for the article to be selectively merged. It's a keep for me. Haleth (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Great job, Archrogue! Really well done. As with Haleth, I'm removing my position. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment So after I was chastised for voting procedural keep on the basis of the rationale ignoring WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN, people were able to find significant coverage? Jeesh, it's almost as though citing policy is constructive or something.  Dark knight  2149  04:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you had voted (non-procedural) "Keep" and cited said coverage instead of just arguing against the very basis of the nomination, then, yes, it would certainly have been constructive. But, at the time, it's unclear if you were even aware the coverage existed. Now, personally, I'm still skeptical of the new sources raised. They are largely still short sentence-long mentions saying that Dee Jay is offensive (but no analysis... according to the developers, he was supposed to be inoffensive, so why the heavy disparity in reception)?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your original argument was not rooted in policy: you cited a bunch of problems with the state of sourcing, and then concluded that it fails the GNG. Per WP:NEXIST, that's not a valid conclusion: The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. It doesn't matter if Darkknight2149 knew if there were other sources; your AfD wasn't properly constructed, and it was fair for them to vote Keep ("procedural" keep is really strange to me; there's no real distinction there—it’s just a Keep vote with a procedural rationale). There is no problem with them "arguing against the [...] basis of the nomination" here. This AfD is not properly arguing for an AfD is an absolutely fair objection. It isn't Darkknight's responsibility to find sources for the article when there's an AfD because your AfD rationale was explicitly violated policy. I also don't love the new sourcing, but this never should have been an AfD. Just post on the Talk next time... — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dont try to do the AFD equivalent of WP:GRAVEDANCEing. If the article is kept, it would be because someone did the work of source hunting, not your bogus procedural keep nonsense. Sergecross73   msg me  02:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:WIN is the appropriate one if you have to quote an essay as part of your criticism of Darkknight2149's behaviour. No blocked or retired users are involved in this AfD. Also, while I agree with ImaginesTigers's view that "procedural keep" is an odd position to advocate, Darkknight2149's rationale is not a fringe one as it is essentially the same as the one taken by another administrator here, and I quote: Haleth (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the point of my comment was not "Haha, you lose." My point was that, after I was rudely lampooned for correctly citing policy (quality of in-article sources is an illegitimate way of determining GNG), it turned out that the article had significant coverage all along, therefore demonstrating why this "Procedural keep nonsense" exists in the first place. When it comes to, that was actually my point. Policy isn't an arbritrary set of rules that exists for no reason. It has been discussed, tried, revised, and tested.  Dark knight  2149  05:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I hate to walk back into a WP:BATTLEGROUND and I try to remember to ignore the WP:BAIT, but enough is enough. Everyone already knows that we measure our articles based on their WP:POTENTIAL and we don't need editors telling us that sources might exist. Everybody always says there might be sources and it doesn't make it true for every topic. The best way to prove sources exist is to find sources. I'm glad people thank me for finding sources and improving the article but a procedural vote did zero to help me. Wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY and it did nothing to stop this AFD. It resulted in zero sources being found. It resulted in zero people voting keep. And if I thought I could shut this AFD down by saying there was a procedural problem, I wouldn't have found sources, and people wouldn't have changed their votes, and the AFD would probably close as redirect. And that would have been the consensus. Besides I would rather see an AFD where I have a chance to add sources than fail to see redirect because it's not technically an AFD. Jumping back into this AFD makes me a bad example and I'll take blame for that. But my real point is to spend less time commenting back and forth in AFD and spend more time actually adding sources. Archrogue (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand deletion procedure. This idea that anyone can file nominations just because an article is currently poorly sourced and then demand that others "find sources" is a myth. The nominator is expected to determine if an article fails GNG before filing the nomination, and then cite the grounds for this within the rationale. WP:POTENTIAL is actually against the filing of this nomination, and more pertinent than that is WP:ATD, WP:DELREASON, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, WP:RUBBISH, WP:IGNORINGATD, WP:NOTNOTABLE, and WP:ITSCRUFT. If anything was unhelpful, it was the filing of this AfD. This is a talk page, rewrite, template, or perhaps a redirect discussion issue, but not an AfD issue. I should add that a few editors here need some instruction on assuming bad faith.  Dark knight  2149  22:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "I'm not going to reply any further though, because it's just getting heated and going in circles." Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 02:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:COMMONSENSE. This AfD is one of the situations reminding me why all of the notability guidelines are just guidelines, and not a single one of them, including WP:GNG, is a policy. IMO, ultimately, the depth and significance of coverage available are best judged by seeing if it is possible to build a proper full length detailed encyclopedic article based on the sources in question. That's manifestly the case here. Unlike so many other articles related to VG, this one is not fancraft and is not filled with OR. The 'Reception' section contains precisely the kind of informative critical analysis of the character that one would want to see. Nsk92 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources in the reception section contain enough analysis to pass the minimum standards of GNG, in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 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.