Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raziel (Legacy of Kain)


 * 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__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Raziel (Legacy of Kain)

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

Unlike Kain, this article's reception is mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like listicles and some passing mentions from game reviews. Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV or sources that mianly talked about Raziel per WP:BEFORE somehow. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 12:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games.   Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 10:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect Merge to Legacy of Kain. The reception is entirely sourced to reviews of the game and clickbait listicles. Generally speaking, the series article already goes over what is said in this article, and there is otherwise no standalone notability for the character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So far I maintain my stance on it, though the Kill Screen article recently discovered is an excellent source on him. Just not sure the others are of a similar caliber. I also did a magazine search since this series is from that era, but found solely trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zxcvbnm the article has been updated and rewritten. Would you be willing to change your vote? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. I'm not trying to be petty, but article authors can draw a lot, and I mean a lot of content out of passing mentions - enough to fill an entire reception section handily - without the sources necessarily indicating the character is notable. So, I sympathize with the rewrite, but WP:OVERCOME applies. The rewritten article uses very long quotes, and an ultra-long block quote, to pad out what could be slimmed down to a few choice sentences. If the unnecessary and possibly copyright infringing quotations are removed or paraphrased, it would be half its length or less. As before, the Kill Screen article's the only one in particular I'd refer to as SIGCOV beyond a doubt. There should definitely be a place to discuss Raziel's character on Wikipedia, but it feels like it would be the main article of the series, game or a character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm observing a bit of spuriousness to these AfD nominations bordering on zero effort towards improvement recently. Raziel is not a trickier subject to track down some analysis of than Kain. I was able to grab and integrate four or five thinkpieces discussing this character in under an hour with minimal effort and no use of archives or literature - these address the main complaint. Per WP:BEFORE it would probably make sense to invest some time and integrate sources you find as citations, rather than rush articles to review or AfD. LoK Wiki (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Only the KillScreen source is valuable, others are trivial.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 15:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A one-liner that the sources are "trivial" isn't sufficiently clear to me. The Kill Screen article contains less direct commentary on the character than other sources and leans more towards structural comparison. Gamasutra was a much better source for me, so is NME. Can you explain in depth how you're defining value and what you're looking for to reduce confusion? LoK Wiki (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * My view on things is that Kill Screen speaks about Raziel's metaphorical significance, while Gamasutra/Game Developer is mostly describing the stylistic writing of the intro, and is not actually about Kain or Raziel besides the intro's quoted words and the explanations of those words. NME has a few choice statements on Raziel that can be used, but is mostly a game retrospective praising the game's gameplay and story, in general, not specifically about Raziel. Of course, I encourage people to make their own opinions and not just say that because I said it, I must be right. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While I would follow and agree with your perspective as an assessment of article quality, I don't understand where this is codified anywhere as a good or relevant rationale for deletion. Under WP:SIGCOV "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." What you're saying here is that regardless of the depth and extent of attention the sources pay to the character, the character does need to be the central topic of the sources to constitute SIGCOV or else it is invalid - but that seems to be an excessively high or idiosyncratic standard which doesn't exist in policy, and just breeds confusion when at the same time voting to keep something like Sagat held together by only four or five extremely weak list articles, not even a single source of this calibre. LoK Wiki (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly". I feel some of them are indirect in how they mention the topic. Also, to be fair, I did not vote to keep Sagat based on its current article state, WP:NEXIST is important to keep in mind. Many people nominate articles because they are bad right now while not taking into account future possibility. However, my keep was "weak" and I have no major issues with redirecting if that is the prevailing consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The requirement of addressing the topic directly is expressly balanced with the caveat that the subject need not be the central focus of the sources at all. While Raziel is not the central subject of either source, he clearly is addressed directly and in detail throughout both. They both contain significant coverage of the character. From the illustrative bad example at WP:SIGCOV, "address the topic directly" has more to do with nixing sources limited to offhand mention of the subject than it has to do with examining the fine nuances of how the character discussion in the article happens to arise. There are other sources which can easily be inserted (including literature). But using a rationale as far into the weeds as this to rule out character study material is idiosyncratic. I'm just looking to nail down a coherent notion of the policies and goalposts to be satisfied, because I've seen a fair share of chaotic subjectivity and non policies at play in these recent AfDs. LoK Wiki (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep While I do feel it needs some paraphrasing on those quotes LoK Wiki added, and some cleaning on the lists so they focus on what's being said and a few of the more questionable ones get deep sixed (the Sterling "characters we'd go gay for" one is particularly...yeah) I feel what's there meets notability now and don't agree with the assertion that it's trivial.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep after massive, substantive expansion of the section being challenged, with even more material sitting in reserve, I see no reasonable way that deletion on the basis given here would be justified. LoK Wiki (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on it. I guess I own you apology after you were forced to work on the article, but that happens everytime during the afd process. I think it passes WP:GNG now, but I can't withdraw since someone voted merge.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 11:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per the work done by LoK Wiki. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:51, 10 August 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.