Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma (Mega Man X)


 * 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 ‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Sigma (Mega Man X)

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

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:Kung Fu Man, as he has made it clear he believes the article is non-notable. His stated rationale is: "Character's whole article is held up by short mentions or lists, doesn't really meet notability". As one of the article's authors, I disagree with its soft deletion, therefore I am nominating it to go through a full discussion to see if it's really non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Video games.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused why you led with pushing it to AfD, or chose to open a AfD on my behalf instead of a talk page discussion. I would have preferred that as AfD is not for cleanup. That said, ref [26] is the strongest one here. But then there's stuff like Ref [24] which is just bizarre (comparing Sigma from Overwatch to this Sigma) to use because it's not really commentary and closer to a bad Valnet article? Not to mention [22] which is also...really not saying anything.
 * In any event, I would've been down for a discussion if you felt I overlooked some sources instead of "you can't BLAR you must AfD!"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Being a "bizarre" source is not a disqualifier except apparently in your opinion. It's a legitimate comparison, that may indicate some inspiration, and an example of significant coverage. And I was forced to create a procedural AfD, as you went beyond the BRD cycle by reverting twice. The alternative would have been attempting to edit war. I would have preferred to discuss after a single revert, but I had no choice in the matter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean I have a talk page, and as I stated on your talk page, I misunderstood the situation. It has been a trend of editors forcing BLAR's to go through AfDs instead lately. I honestly just request this be Withdrawn.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I oppose withdrawing, as I feel like it can just lead to another BLAR down the line. Its notability has been questioned, in no uncertain terms, ensuring it is notable is important to maintain the article's stability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep The reception section has commentary on varied aspects of the character by various secondary sources, thus fulfilling WP:WHYN/notability requirements. We have a not-so-short article with lots of non-plot information. So I see no reason for deletion, nor an advantage in a merge to a character list. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not voting at this stage, but I wanted to share the assessment I made of the sources listed to gather other editors' views / challenge my assessment first:

I'd also note that in my opinion several of these should be considered primary sources, in particular 20, 25 and 31, which cover Sigma as part of the critic's emotional response to the subject, not as part of a broader discussion or commentary on the themes the character expresses. Shazback (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of those sources as 'primary'? I have never seen anyone define a primary source in that way. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding based on the following policies, emphasis mine:
 * Reliable_sources:
 * Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.
 * When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.
 * The last sentence references Virginia Tech, which notes that:
 * Opinion reviews give the article's author's opinion about the book. The review will typically include a brief summary of the book, and could include discussion on writing style, audience level and the book author's area of expertise. Opinion reviews are published in newspapers, popular magazines and specialty publications like the New York Times Book Review.
 * No original research:
 * Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources.
 * This is expanded upon in a footnote No original research:
 * Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires [...].
 * There are essays discussing the articulation of these concepts, however as non-policy they can be disputed freely:
 * Identifying_and_using_primary_sources:
 * In the fine arts, a work of art is always a primary source. [...] Statements made by or works written by the artists about their artwork might be primary or secondary. Critiques and reviews by art critics are usually considered secondary sources, although exceptions exist. For example, an account of the specific circumstances under which the critic viewed the artwork is primary material, as is the critics' description of their personal emotional reaction to the piece. As a result, some critiques and reviews are a mix of primary and secondary material.
 * Frequently_misinterpreted_sourcing_policy:
 * Reviews (in the book, film, etc. sense; this doesn't mean academic literature reviews) are by nature subjective; a work cannot be said by WP to be "derivative", "thrilling", etc., based on them. Reviewer speculation about inspirations for, influences on, and meaning of a work are wholly subjective and unreliable, absent statements from the creators of the work, or numerous notable reviewers all concurring. For opinions on the tone, style, and characteristics of a work, we can quote/paraphrase reviewers with attribution in a due and balanced manner.
 * If there are specific other policies, guidelines or consensus elements I should be aware of, more than happy to take them into account. Shazback (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to point out that reviews, with all their subjective elements, are an important and expected basis of articles on topics of fiction and should not be discounted (emphasis mine):
 * WP:ALLPLOT: articles about fiction [...] should also include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works
 * Notability (fiction): Information that may help provide the real-world discussion necessary for an encyclopedia article about a fictional topic includes reception, analysis, significance, development, legacy and influence, and relationships with or comparisons to other media.
 * Notability (books): The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews.
 * Notability (video games): A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer. Published sources include any reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, websites, and consumer reports. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I'm in agreement with Darianos. I see several good sources already used in the article. This doesn't warrant a merge. MoonJet (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - the circumstances of this AFD are strange to me, a procedural nomination on behalf of someone who does not want the article deleted, an editor who AFDed to avoid "another BLAR down the line", and an unclear discussion on WP:PRIMARY. This probably should have just been a merge discussion in the first place. As for my keep vote, the source analysis above proved there is a decisive WP:THREE here with other reliable sources as well (I do think they were a bit harsh on source judging). (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: far from a delete, merge (ehh) im in agreement with the source table above. Password  (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 20 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.