Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Sax


 * 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__. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Mona Sax

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

After the clean up, there seems to be nothing for Mona Sax. This is an Old GA, the standards before were isn't big (GA has no bearing with notability). There are sources that amount to WP:REFBOMB going on with small quotes from reviews and/or passing mentions. Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV, since the GameZone source is dead. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge the new rule for VG characters is “merging is cheap” since most of them are not notable and it’s easier to merge sourced info rather than try and salvage an entire article. Dronebogus (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Admittedly that's coming across like "purge because lol VG character" which *shouldn't* be the mindset we go into over these. We should be genuinely trying to figure out which subjects can and can't work as an article, regardless of if its a character or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, everything needs evaluation on a case by case basis. Just because a lot of video game characters are being re-evaluated as non-notable doesn't mean all of them are. WP:BATHWATER applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinions and input on these discussions, but I'd really rather this not be the default mindset people enter these discussions with. It already feels a bit like we're merging some that could have been salvaged, but aren't because people are burned out on the constant stream of these discussions. There's a lot of junk articles out there, but there's a lot of decent ones too. Sergecross73   msg me  16:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per analyses found at pp. 24, 27,  p. 116,  p. 117,  p. 91, and according to the preview possibly  as well, that one's a bit harder to sift through. But if what's there is better fleshed out it should be able to make a decent reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Kung Fu Man's analysis of the available sourcing. While Dronebogus is entitled to their opinion, there certainly is no "new rule for VG characters" as such. Haleth (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep The mention in the first source Kung Fu Man cited is really impressive. That, combined with the GameZone article asking for a Mona Sax-centric game, and "Noir Affect" saying she "subverts male predatory behavior", seems to satisfy GNG even if the other sources are less so. The problems in this article seem WP:SURMOUNTABLE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kung Fu Man's sources. Sergecross73   msg me  15:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per KFM's sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found by KFM. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per KFM. WP:POTENTIAL has been shown and this just needs some work. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep (weak) per new sources. Karnataka (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kung Fu Man's rationale. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:12, 24 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.