Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raiden Shogun


 * 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__. The consensus here is to Keep this article although there is some agreement that this article could be in much better shape than it is today. Liz Read! Talk! 21:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Raiden Shogun

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

I don't think this topic meets WP:N. A large number of the sources are from a content farm Valnet Inc. and the remainder appear to be WP:GAMECRUFT. I think this topic should be converted back into a redirect to Genshin Impact or List of Genshin Impact characters. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:03, 23 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) 18:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Genshin Impact characters. Super WP:REFBOMB-y and lacks mentions of substance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * comment I feel there are some sources that can provide notability here if properly utilized: published paper focusing on the character,  additional published paper examining her design. Looking at some of the sources too I feel they may not be entirely properly cited. While I feel she might be niche, it'd probably be better tagged as cleanup instead of merged for now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there proof these papers were cited by anyone? Simply being a published paper does not immediately indicate notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That feels a bit like moving the goalpost to be honest, Zx. I've never seen that argued before, even by you in all these previous afd's. But to answer your question google doesn't list any citations, just notes the first was published in the book "Sustainable Development in Creative Industries: Embracing Digital Culture for Humanities"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * And would it be enough to just mention this source on one of the two pages I suggested be immediately merged? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not moving the goalpost at all. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that, one may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not to the exclusion of the others, Zx. It's used as an option to confirm that the source has entered academic discourse as an alternative to the article being published and undergoing peer review, not an absolute requirement by itself. That's not how that works...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think Zx is interpreting this incorrectly. The bullet point "Citation counts" talks about how you can in part use citation count to judge where a paper falls on a scale from a minority view to majority scholarly consensus, which is useful for determining how much weight to give it in a given article - but it does not say that a paper needs to have been cited to be an RS and usable on WP. The point "Reliable scholarship" is more important for this discussion, combined with the old A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from WP:GNG. For the record, I don't know anything about this character, haven't looked into the specific sourcing situation, and don't know whether this particular article should exist or not - just speaking about WP:SCHOLARSHIP and GNG.--AlexandraIDV 23:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it really seems like a significant misread of the guideline, and I think it'd be valuable for Zx to respond to clear this up. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I suppose I misunderstood the policy, my apologies. I remain the same in my belief that there are not enough sources of significant coverage to pass the WP:GNG criteria, but I do acknowledge that it exists, as demonstrated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


 * comment I do agree that most of the sources are pretty weak. However, there is nontrivial coverage from The Stanford Daily that examines the character design in detail. Since this video game is not local to California, I believe this student newspaper article can count toward WP:N.
 * There were several nontrivial commentaries on how the second chapter of the story quest improves the game experience from siliconera and kotaku ( and ).
 * Screen Rant is on WP:RSP and has multiple sources in the article. Most of the articles are simple news coverages, but and  could be considered nontrivial since the writer provides a plot analysis and reports a real-world event that demonstrates the popularity of this fictional character.
 * I did manage to find coverage from mainstream media such as Forbes ( archived on ). It mainly discusses building the character in-game. The article is certainly a nontrivial analysis, though I don't think it will provide much encyclopedic value.
 * I'm pinging the creator of the original article. He is active on the Chinese Wikipedia, so hopefully he is able to chime in here. PetraMagna (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these are convincing to me - either they discuss the characters and/or plot as a whole, making it more fitting for a list, are from content farm sites, or mention the character Raiden Shogun only in passing. There could very well be significant Chinese sources, but nothing jumps out at me in English as clearly and obviously significant and reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the Stanford Daily article has enough coverage as it contains at least a paragraph dedicated to her aesthetics and contains numerous details on her clothing. The Kotaku article also stands strict scrutiny to me: it is about the game's plot, but in every paragraph mentions Raiden Shogun in some way since the plot is centered around her. PetraMagna (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @PetraMagna If this does survive, I'm going to suggest it be moved to Raiden (Genshin Impact), as there seems to be three different named being routinely applied towards this character (Ei, Shogun and Baal) in terms of a fictional character for reception, and that would help reduce some confusion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I wonder how Baal (Genshin Impact) would do. It is a less familiar name for most players, though. PetraMagna (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd keep it simple and just go with Raiden in this case, since it's a unified name between Shogun and Ei. Baal can be mentioned in the body of the article to explain the significance.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @PetraMagna For use of Stanford Daily to establish notability - I disagree per WP:RSSM. But even then it is a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. ScreenRant, GamerRant, other Valnet properties, etc. count as one source if I am not mistaken for the purposes of WP:GNG.
 * Cleaning all the WP:FANCRUFT made me think that this topic is only notable in the context of Genshin Impact, which is why I believe it is best to have all the information included in the larger discussion of commentary and critique of Genshin characters in general, rather than as its own article. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So it now seems that we have two research papers on this topic, one of which is incorporated in the article while the other is not. Stanford daily maybe counts as half of a valid source of notability. Valnet articles such as all count as a single article (there's a lot of fancruft in there, but some articles have significant coverage on, for example, real world events related to the character). Siliconera and kotaku have several articles, some of which made significant coverage, so they can count as one source or two depending on how generous we are. There's a few more sources that other editors mentioned, though they overlap with the existing ones in this reply. The Forbes article is also an edgy one: detailing the character's in-game attributes seems like significant coverage to me, but it's also fancruft.
 * All in all, if we are very picky, there are 3 sources so far (4 if the second research paper is incorporated in the article) that establish the subject's notability and double that amount if we are permissive. At least SIGCOV is satisfied in my opinion. We can discuss the character's influences outside of the game further. On top of my head, at least the screen rant article linked above talks about real-world events in which the article's subject is a main focus. This article's content would be inappropriate to put inside the list of characters since it does not primarily concern the video game. PetraMagna (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Different standard between Chinese and English wikipedia in notability of fictional elements, e.g. WP:NFICT in Chinese wikipedia is notability guidelines , in English wikipedia is essay. Just follow local guideline , I have not comment in English wikipedia. Nostalgiacn (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In English, its WP:GNG.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Cut, yeet, add, revise - I sense some refbombs and trivial information written to the article alone, some sources I found to be notable for inclusion, so a cleanup would be suitable. The almighty anomalocaris • chat 13:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, though overhaul: A lot of the sources have some reception info and could be cited a lot better, with a lot of the gameplay discussion reduced in light of character/design analysis. SIGCOV is being satisfied at the very least.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Some of the sources are useful, including these  .   Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 02:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:VG/S states of Kotaku, "Editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance", which the 3rd one absolutely falls under. The 1st one, while not on Kotaku is far geekier even than that. The 2nd doesn't even mention Raiden Shogun at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Raiden Ei, Raiden Shogun, and Baal are all used interchangeably to refer to the same (very overcomplicated) character. That's why I suggested above it just be moved to Raiden (Genshin Impact) after this to simplify this confusion.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Not that I think it counts as WP:SIGCOV regardless. It's certainly worth including in a character list, but not a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge we already have List of Genshin Impact characters, and the way the article is written right now, it's just a lot of gamecruft. I think the little bit we have in that article is fine.Jaguarnik (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Genshin Impact characters. WP:SIGCOV isn't met by usingWP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character's abilities in the middle of a review, or noting the character's appearance in an advertising banner. The WP:REFBOMB is full of off topic information that should be cut, but I can maybe believe that there would be something left over at the end to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Raiden is in rough shape, but I see the light at the end of the tunnel for her, especially with the sources shown in this AfD thus far. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

*Merge. Unable to see not SOLO importance wp:TRICIALMENTOON. Gerblinpete (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. As much as I dislike the game she comes from, she passes GNG. NegativeMP1 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to have ample GNG-meeting sources. I'm not terribly impressed by the efforts to exclude a source for being "geeky" or the reliance on the WP:FANCRUFT essay or the WP:GAMECRUFT style guide. A merge wouldn't be the worst thing, but there is substantial encyclopedic content here that won't fit into a table row. -- Visviva (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel like there is a lot of unnecessary detail, particularly under Character Story the gameplay descriptions under Reception, but the sourcing otherwise seems fine and the article passes GNG.  Mori Calliope fan   talk   05:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sourcing is good enough to let her pass the GNG. Hansen Sebastian Talk 03:29, 7 July 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.