Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Amber


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Amber

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

Not a notable character in a video game series, could be redirected to Life Is Strange: Before the Storm Bruxton (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Bruxton (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per post-nomination improvements showing RS commentary. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Merge into Life Is Strange: Before the Storm due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV, which means that the topic does not meet the presumption of a standalone mainspace article according to the threshold mandated by WP:GNG. Even after the recent improvements, the only thing the article creator could come up with is a short paragraph about LGBT representation in Life is Strange generally, as opposed to information which is specifically about what Rachel Amber represents in pop culture or LGBT studies. The current prose can easily fit into the reception section for Before the Storm, or to flesh out a character analysis section for Chloe Price, since Rachel's only out-of-universe relevance is her role in Chloe's story arc and character development throughout the series. There is zero developmental info specifically about the character from a real world perspective, and a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any better sourcing then what is currently cited. Also, and this is addressed to the nominator, I am not sure why you insist on taking this to AfD, when there clearly is a clear solution, an alternative to deletion, which you yourself have suggested in your deletion nomination: either boldly redirect the article to Life Is Strange: Before the Storm, or start a merge discussion if you want to take the temperature on consensus. Haleth (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks I find that the merge discussions can take a year. My own article titled Temporary art took almost a year even with a unanimous merge/redirect ivote. And a bold redirect can cause friction and reverts. So I usually prefer the quicker and cleaner community and admin endorsed AfD process. Thanks for the message. Bruxton (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do emphathize with your position as it is impractical for editors to patrol the project and close overdue merge discussions. The thing with merge discussions is that, you would have to specifically advertise them in the relevant project page and then request an uninvolved editor to take time out to close the discussion if necessary. As it is, you did not actually provide an appropriate delete rationale, which means other uninvolved editors are entitled, in accordance with this guideline to close your AfD on a speedy keep ground if they see fit. Haleth (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep A number of secondary sources cover this character, so that we now have a well-referenced non-stubby article. That is the goal of WP:GNG in the first place, so Rachel Amber is notable by the standard of that guideline. Daranios (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Merge (per nom) This article and Steph Gingrich appear to be continuations of all video game characters with a fandom need a Wikipedia article. As with Max Caulfield or Chloe Price, I argue the new cited information of these character articles that is not redundant of the game articles would be feasibly incorporated there for the benefit for readers.


 * In contrast to these, I find the article Tyler Ronan of a related game shows what a decent article about game sub-element looks like, while I would still argue that it could be redirected and integrated into the main article. IgelRM (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think focusing on other related articles that exists on Wikipedia is relevant to this discussion, unless as a merge and redirect suggestion. The issue to focus on here is whether existing reliable sources provide sufficiently significant attention to this specific character in question, per the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. Haleth (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, altering to merge and redirect as more aligned to my argumentation. No notable sources with the character as the primary topic (as said per nom). I think the context of the author KlayClarx creating these two articles on same topic is relevant. Thanks. IgelRM (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources such as Gameinformer, PCGamer, Engadget, PopMatters, amid others, all make Rachel Amber one of the primary topics of the article and extensively go into her creation, development, and character. I suppose there's a level of subjectivity for what is characterized is notable — as with other articles on here — but presently available information on Rachel Amber from reliable, secondary sources exceeds that of other articles that have been deemed as meeting this threshold. KlayCax (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Parts of Amber's article simply wouldn't fit in the proposed merger. KlayCax (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I commend you for your recent research efforts. Out of these 4 sources, only PopMatters is not an interview about the game with questions about the character. This journal-like article states to be about "confusion and contradictions of life" depicted in the game but describes Rachel's character in detail, while less in the conclusion. I would sum of the bits used from source as "being expanded by Deck Nine, having a presence throughout and being compared to Laura Palmer". Rachel and Chloe's relationship also look to be described in detail, perhaps something can be found there.
 * Still certainly a case for weak pop culture notability. Seems to me like re-writting most of the article would be necessary to comprehend this. I was trying to make a point with the other character article that I question the use of this style, but perhaps bits from the newly added sources will make it more useful. Suppose I changed my recommendation to draft or week keep. IgelRM (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: The character seems to have received quite a bit of controversy. As Daranios mentioned, there's plenty of non-trivial coverage in there to expand it beyond a stub. MoonJet (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing with the "controversy" is that many of the sources don't even specifically talk about Rachel Amber as a character or whether they are recognized outside of the fandom or player base, but rather how LGBT themes in the LiS franchise are handled by its developers overall which is what said players are really reacting to. In other words, Rachel Amber the character isn't the source or subject of controversy, but the creative direction adopted by the developers. A careful read of the sources indicated to me that most of the "discussions" that were about Rachel were passing mentions or brief hot take criticisms that don't take up a single page. You are conflating the aggregated discussions about LGBT themes in Life is Strange, to an overarching in-depth discussion that is supposedly about Rachel. For example, what relevance does a source that talks about the allegedly "ungraceful" depiction of LGBT themes in Life is Strange 2 have to do with Rachel Amber when she does not even appear in the story itself? More specifically, how does it contribute towards making a case for notability of a mainspace article about her? Instead of accepting the advice and feedback from others about how the content they introduced should be contextualized and handled, in my opinion the article creator appears to be doubling down on the indiscriminate refbombing in an attempt to create an illusion that the subject topic is somehow notable in its own right. Haleth (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect/draft - It's really hard to tell the actual potential here due to the refbombing. Some seem to be just brief mentions, while some do seem to be talking about it. I think this should be drafted so someone can take the time to actually go through to make sure every source is actually relevant to the topic. Even if it turns out not to be enough, I imagine the content will probably be useful elsewhere. TTN (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Gameinformer, PCGamer, Engadget, and PopMatters extensively elaborate upon Rachel Amber. As for citing a majority of details of her character arc in the story predominately upon articles/journal entries — rather than citing the video game level it occurred in — I realize that many editors see the former as generally a better method of citation when the option is available. (Due to an often lack of easily finding the specific mention or instance within the game, a possible subjective interpretation required of scenes, et al.) There's a lot to work with that exists in existent, reliable sourcing. I realize that the article presently has flaws within it — to some extent, all articles probably do — but this doesn't necessitate deletion. KlayCax (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. After some digging, I have concluded that the GNG has been cleared and probably far surpassed. I haven't checked all the refs, yet it was enough to find overwhelming evidence of SIGCOV, in my opinion.      However, I would like to remind  that interviews are not secondary sources, and thus do not count towards notability. Toadspike  (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Even if we clean up some of the WP:PLOT summaries, the GNG has been met and this is a suitable article. Archrogue (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2022 (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.