Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torrent (Elden Ring)


 * 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 speedy keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes. (non-admin closure) ~ A412  talk! 19:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Torrent (Elden Ring)

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

When writing a character article it's important to illustrate what sets the character apart from its base work, and why it's necessary to have a stand-alone article to fully understand it.

Torrent in this case is more of a game mechanic, and even in the sources cited there isn't an indication of importance beyond the game itself. While there is some slight design commentary, the vast majority pertains to Elden Ring itself as a gameplay element to explore the title. It's not a discussion of the horse's character or how players or reviewers reacted to it, but in sources like VG247's there the excitement of riding a horse in a game like this.

Couple it with a dev section that's essentially trivia, and in-universe details to bulk up the "Features" section (why is the exact health regen a thing?) and...yeah. At best, what reception isn't in the Elden Ring article would be better suited there. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep (Am article creator) It appears the nominator has ignored the significant coverage from Kotaku, PC Gamer, Polygon and VG247 as well as TheGamer, amongst other sites, as disliking the subject apparently comes first. Torrent is unquestionably notable, and is a fully fledged character of the game - while he doesn't talk, it's hinted Torrent's probably of human-level intelligence and directly chose the main character rather than the other way around, not that it matters as far as GNG is concerned. There isn't much more to say besides that it seems to solely be motivated by not liking the article and calling it "trivia" without merit or basis in fact, which is obviously no basis for anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "ignoring all this SIGCOV". Let's do a source analysis.
 * The Gamer is giving an exposition dump and while fine for citing in the context of the body for secondary sourcing, is not reception. It's also the sort of sourcing you've argued against in the past.
 * PCGamer, Polygon, and VG247 are discussing it in the context of a game mechanic. Outside of the scope of Elden Ring, this is meaningless, unless you somehow feel "turning radius" is character reception. All of this relates to Elden Ring's reception, even in light of other FromSoftware games. As a stand alone character, there is no discussion.
 * Kotaku's is the one case discussing it in the context of design. And even then, it veers into gameplay commentary in the scope of Elden Ring.
 * So yes, the sources were read and examined prior to this. One has to consider the scope and text in a source and what it's applying to. The fact it's a horse doesn't change notability standards: compare it to Weighted Companion Cube, a subject that is, literally, an inanimate cube, yet has discussion and SIGCOV actually discussing it in the context of being a fictional character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is rather rich that you are making this argument, while also having directly contributed to articles such as Wooper, as well as proposing a merge for Magikarp and Gyarados, which are also about characters with no personality that are judged solely for their gameplay and appearance, yet seemingly had no qualms about them, nor most other Pokemon articles. To call this contradictory is putting it lightly. If what you argue is truly policy it would seemingly disqualify every Pokemon article save for the ones with plot relevance like Pikachu or Mewtwo. We know it's not true, though, because Pokemon like Snorlax did get kept by community consensus. I don't see Snorlax playing a pivotal role in the story of the games besides being a giant roadblock. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure many Pokemon are still judged for their personality, even Snorlax. I'm not sure why you chose that particular tangent outside of a weird WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that doesn't even remotely apply to this subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear I'm not arguing OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, my point is that gameplay mechanics are a perfectly valid way for a character to be notable, and one that's been backed up by consensus. This whole "gameplay doesn't count!" thing appears to be a personal invention with no basis in policy. INDISCRIMINATE says it should demonstrate significance, and gameplay can be significant, as in this case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See, here's the problem: gameplay can be adequate to show notability, but there's a good reason why gameplay articles are very rare. Typically, gameplay articles succeed because of cultural impact or because they cover a lot of ground that can't be easily summarized without article bloat. or because they apply to enough articles that it wouldn't make sense to merge it into a parent article. Torrent's reception seems to amount to "most people find him useful for navigating the world of Elden Ring, though some feel that he doesn't change much in terms of quality of life." I would not argue that there's any claim that gameplay doesn't count, I believe the argument being made is that the discussion of gameplay is pretty insufficient compared to other articles about gameplay. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All of those articles you mentioned are, as Kung Fu Man noted, judged on their personality, appearance, gameplay significance, and more. Anyway, to stay on topic, I'll check the sources myself.


 * - This has very little to say about Torrent as a horse, almost exclusively being based on its mechanical value. Now, that kind of coverage is not without its value, but if it's more premised on a game mechanic and game utility than anything else, I would contend that it needs a lot to give it significance.
 * - This seems to be a... pretty minor article about the jankiness/weirdness of the goatish hooves? This is something I would compare to, say, an article about Blastoise being changed to have Hydro Pump's animation changed so the water comes out of his shell gun things. Not worthless, but certainly not something I'd use as an article's foundation.
 * - Again, this is purely mechanical, not really getting to the heart of Torrent's character in any way.
 * The two mod sources - This feels a little weak; if the articles were about Torrent modding, maybe, but they're just a smaller part of a bigger subject.
 * The rest seem to be about concept and creation info (correct me if I'm wrong).
 * If I may recommend it, you might be able to find better sourcing by using this, frankly, crude method of search I devised: User:Cukie Gherkin/Source searching. I find that it's a little more time consuming, but it tends to get deeper (and is much more valuable now that Google search algorithm is so shite). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Lionel Cristiano? 14:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles for Deletion is not a vote. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple reliable, independent sources give significant coverage to the character, meeting WP:GNG, such as   . (I don't see the problem with the sources giving significant coverage to the character in the context of Elden Ring gameplay — at least, I don't see any objections in the GNG to that. SIGCOV is SIGCOV, GNG is GNG). The article also has enough content to be standalone.  Skyshifter   talk  02:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was already discussed, and it appeared that the sources had been examined (See above).  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 05:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it should be noted that people do not have to agree with the nom's conclusion about the sources. In this case she did not concur with the assertion they do not pass GNG criteria and were insufficient for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually commented only because the user probably didn't know the sources they brought here up were already provided above, not to disagree with their vote.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 06:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair, just be mindful of your wording, as that's how I understood it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know the sources were already provided; that's why I commented about the sources giving coverage "in the context of Elden Ring gameplay", because I saw this was an objection to the sources (which I disagree with). Skyshifter   talk  09:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the context more accurately is that the argument is that the gameplay element within Elden Ring is the sole aspect of discussion. To put it better, the citations discuss how using a horse in that game affected exploration of it compared to previous FromSoftware titles, the character of Torrent isn't the subject of those sources. However, it is the subject of this article. There's also some precedent for this sort of discussion also, such as Articles for deletion/Power Armor (Fallout).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You stated that "the gameplay element is the sole aspect of discussion" and "the character of Torrent isn't the subject of those sources", which is demonstrably false. Here are some choice quotes: "Torrent is my best horse pal [...] I'd love him all the same." PC Gamer. "Every time “You Died” appears on my screen, I do not suffer. But should Torrent be killed, I absolutely mourn." Polygon. "...you know Torrent is always there. Eager to help." VG247. While most of the discussion is gameplay, the sources absolutely do talk about Torrent in the manner of a character, not a device. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Zx come on man you know those are trivial, I mean hell you're even taking the VG247 one out of context. Come on. You've argued against this very same sort of sourcing in the past, and against sources that have said more about subjects just recently.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Withdraw, without prejudice to AfD possibly later I feel this AfD has trainwrecked, but at the same time I recognize this is an important subject to the creator. Looking online at Google News has also presented the possibility that upcoming downloadable content may offer more depth to the character and actual reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:32, 28 March 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.