Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Ronan


 * 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, albeit with the contingency that the article may be substantially trimmed, and possibly retitled, both editorial matters beyond the scope of this determination. BD2412 T 03:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Tyler Ronan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Created by a blocked sock, article mostly a fork of the Tell Me Why article, sourced on passing mentions of the character in the context of the game. Insanely detailed for something that fails WP:GNG and is overwhelmingly WP:TOOMUCH. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The entirety of the concept behind the article easily passes WP:GNG; I would advise the nominator to do a proper WP:BEFORE, or check and read the cited sources again to determine whether the sources primarily talk about the game with only "passing mentions" of the character as alleged. I found that often times, it is the other way around with the cited sources, especially when considering that the character's depiction is in reality only one aspect of the overall video game. The nominator's allegations of "insanely detailed" and WP:TOOMUCH is noted but not accepted; the coverage is in fact evidence of WP:SIGCOV from multiple sources designated as reliable and independent by the WP:VG wikiproject which specifically discuss the significance of the character from a real world perspective as culturally important or relevant within the context of the landmark portrayal of minority groups. This is also supported by the fact that the character was the subject of two accolades from a dedicated LGBT media publication awarded to the developers, along with nominations by other awards programs. Any qualms about excessive detail is an editorial or content quality issue; this can be resolved with discussion and editing, and is not a valid deletion rationale.


 * I note that the blocked sock in question only created the name as a redirect, but did not contribute anything to the prose. I wrote it in its entirety. If the main purpose of this AfD is motivated by a desire to eliminate any and all traces of the blocked sock's edits, I advise the nominator to promptly withdraw the deletion nomination as it is not in compliance with any known deletion guideline or policy on this website. Furthermore, this AfD is not properly transcluded to the list of video games deletion discussions. Haleth (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Has a number of reliable references. – Cupper 52 Discuss! 08:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Given that the character appears only in the single episodic game and that the parent article isn't particularly fleshed out, it really doesn't make a ton of sense for the character to have an article at this time. While single media appearance characters certainly can have articles, the parent article usually has been fleshed out to the point that the character's weight makes a split necessary. That doesn't seem to be the case for this character. TTN (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Article content does not determine notability, and on top of that, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing or writing in an article. I agree that the Tell Me Why article still needs work and will remain a work in progress for some time as the scope of content is wider then one video game character. However, there is no guideline or policy which supports your opinion that editors must prioritize work on a video game article like Tell Me Why before any further aspect about that topic can be covered in a separate article, or even says anything about the amount of media a character must appear in to qualify for an article. This article was not created due to size concerns about the Tell Me Why article, but based on existing sourcing I could find which discusses the character not only as a major component of Tell Me Why, but also as part of a broader media coverage and discussion about media portrayals of transgender people or LGBT themes in video games. In other words, it is a content split action, and a legitimate one since sources which support the existence of a standalone article has been identified and cited. The current version of Tell Me Why, which I've recently worked on as part of my efforts, is already looking better then the last version which has languished with an overly long plot summary and little else of encyclopedic value for more then 6 months since its release.


 * The nominator's allegation that this article is a content fork of Tell Me Why is incorrect. The video game is not exclusively about the depiction of a transgender experience through the subject character, and multiple sources which are either cited in this article or the Tell Me Why article, or even sources not yet brought to this discussion's attention certainly support that. There are plenty of reviews about the game not cited in the article since many of them don't actually exclusively talk about the character, which can/should be expanded into the prose and will easily double the size of the Tell Me Why article. I left several properly formatted sources in the reviews infobox, and anyone can pick it up and take it from there since I don't own the article or its contents. There are also several sources about the development of the game which have not been cited on Wikipedia yet, and they aren't exclusively about the development of the Tyler character. Several of the sources cited in the present article however, do discuss the character exclusively and in significant detail, and a few of them aren't even the usual media outlets that cover video games as their going concern. Haleth (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * While it is doubtful that any actual resolution will happen in this AfD, parent articles should not suffer from unneeded child articles. As of this time, it seems completely arbitrary rather than being a topic that requires it. You could split out a lot of characters from single entry games and technically meet the base requirements for GNG, but most will just make the parent article worse off or duplicate information. You need a really substantial game and character to make it work, but this doesn't seem like it. That's just my two cents at the moment, so I have no particular intention on turning this into some big argument. TTN (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll summarize my points as follows then: I am still working on the development and reception sections of the Tell Me Why article (but anyone can lend a hand or take the lead instead), though the state of that article should have no bearing on this article since the nature and focus of the cited sources between two topics aren't exactly the same; this nomination is the result of an incorrect interpretation and application of WP:GNG, as the focus of the rationale appears to be based on article content; the nominator has not provided any evidence that he has done a thorough analysis of the sources or properly explained why they are not suitable to demonstrate notability; and if we are looking from the perspective of parent-child articles as you have suggested, there's actually more then one "parent article or topic" according to the available extent of sources. What you consider as "arbitrary", another may consider it "bold", so we can agree to disagree. Haleth (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. TTN makes a fair point above, and some sources do seem to focus more on the LGBT issues in the game (ex. citing from the article: "As part of their featured article about how Tell Me Why handles the issue of transgender representation through Tyler Ronan"...). But this at best would suggest rewriting this into something like transgender topics in Tell Me Why, and in the end, there are enough sources to warrant stand-alone coverage:, , , . I think he passes NFICTION/GNG requirements, and I also expect in the years to come he will be mentioned in academic works too (although whether he will get an in-depth treatment or not is anyone's guess right now). PS. All that said, the article about the game should be expanded with a summary of the issues discussed here, perhaps by having a section on characters. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: WP:GNG is certainly not the rationale to use here. This character is a landmark character in the video game industry (the first ever trans-gender protagonist ever in a video game). "Transgender topics in Tell Me Why" essentially is the same topic as "Tyler Ronan". With that said, there is a significant overlap between the parent article and this article. For instance, the "Fictional biography" should be trimmed to just several sentences since it is basically the same as the premise section of the parent article. I do agree with TTN that we should work to flesh out the main article first before we ever consider creating any child article, regardless of notability and GNG, but in this case I think the content in the parent article and the child article can be distinct enough. OceanHok (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep As per Piotr Konieczny. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2021 (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.