Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josie Rizal


 * 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 the Tekken series. ✗ plicit  00:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Josie Rizal

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

This is an odd one, but hear me out. I think this article has problems on a few fronts, namely that there's really at the core not a lot to say, the whole article could be summarized in a list entry easily. But the bigger issue is the core of the reception, well pretty much *all* the reception, is something in a week's span or less, and says a lot of the same thing over and over. I don't feel that makes it notable per WP:SUSTAINED. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Josie Rizal has a lot (or at least a decent amount) when it comes to her being a Phillipines representation, something most Tekken characters don't seem to get when it comes to representing their country, so I don't agree its an example of WP:SUSTAINED, which seems to be more about news and events. Also consider the detailed creation section, which is covered by third-party sources. Overall, there's enough discussion on her character to satisfy notability, and for her to have an article. MoonJet (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All of it is within a small timeframe, March 31, 2015 - April 8, 2015 at the latest, and that was after extensive searching. That's slightly over a week. Afterward radio silence, even when searching Japanese sources. That's entirely what SUSTAINED is for: we have to show that there was coverage beyond one short blip or controversy.
 * Now as for the creation section, we have discussion about her design on a Yahoo article from the writer's perspective and not the actual devs, a possibly unreliable source asserting she borrows moves from Manny Pacquiao, and a CBR ref that's proposing a theory. This isn't development info, this is outside sources looking at a thing and suggesting correlations. The Yahoo one, at best, would be useful for citing her character design, but not commentary on how it came about or what's missing on it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A bit late here, but as I said, that guideline seems to be more for events and BLPs than for fictional elements. Even then, it only notes caution, rather than coverage in other timeframes is a must. Also keep in mind WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The fact that most (but not all like you imply) of her coverage was within a timeframe should not be relevant. MoonJet (talk) 17:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge The article will have a tough time standing on its own when the only outside analysis is controversy. I can't see notability being clearly proven. As usual, there is more than enough to justify a list section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge Article needs more notability to stand by itself. Kazama16 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We have at least three sources covering the character beyond trivial or passing mentions. Enough to pass the WP:GNG, and fulfill the purpose of WP:WHYN. Namely, the sources from Yahoo, Kotaku and IGN. And beyond that, there's CBR and MSN, just to name a couple more sources. MoonJet (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MoonJet, the sources still have the same problem I mentioned above: short time frame next to each other and leading to a SUSTAINED issue. Other sources like the CBR one above aren't actually saying anything tangible. Same problem I mentioned above, nothing has changed since my last statement.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But like I said, it only notes to take caution, rather than coverage in other timeframes is a must. Also keep in mind WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The fact that most (but not all like you imply) of her coverage was within a timeframe should not be relevant. MoonJet (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge So, the article mostly relies in controversy section. But, there's no actual discussion about that character except the controversy only.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 22:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge Per others. SUSTAINED is an indicator that notability is not established, despite MoonJet's insistence about NOTTEMPORARY. The argument here isn't that Josie Rizal "lost" notability, but that Josie Rizal was never notable in the first place. MoonJet should probably reread NOTTEMPORARY which is very clear that while notability is not temporary, that doesn't mean a reassessment won't find a topic non-notable. Disclosure, I've arrived here due to MoonJet posting to WP:VGCHAR talk page. Additionally SUSTAINED is not an SNG and is not limited to "events and BLPs" as MoonJet suggested either. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge per ferret; this character lacks significant, sustained coverage and therefore is not notable. NOTTEMPORARY does not render articles immune to later assessments that may or may not find that a given articles is, in fact, not notable. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge for WP:CONSENSUS. I understand why someone would want to WP:PRESERVE this information, but I agree with the other editors about merging to a list. I think you could write a significant reception section at an article about the characters, plural. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2024 (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.