Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhongli (Genshin Impact)


 * 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__. While there's some discussion about a merge to the primary character page being proper, there is no consensus to delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Zhongli (Genshin Impact)
AfDs for this article:


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

Fails GNG. This character has receive little to zero commentary. The only good sources were the criticism about its gameplay? but those doesn't really help; others were trivia. This source is the only good one. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and China.  Delta  space 42  (talk • contribs) 14:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Alright so I'm going to begin this by stating that this article was created in translation of the Chinese version. Now The Chinese Wikipedia has its own reliable secondary sources list concerning video game articles. And yes, I'm well aware that the standards vary significantly between the two versions but some Chinese language sources are currently unavailable in the English Wikipedia as for example, references 8 and 41 are cited as a reliable source according to consensus. There are also entire secondary Chinese studies conducted on Zhongli including references 13 and 30, demonstrating notability in at least Chinese audiences. Furthermore, the character's popularity is well established by both English and Chinese reliable sources. Addressing the The only good sources were the criticism? but those doesn't really help argument, there are articles on the English Wikipedia that gained notability based on controversies or criticism involving either gameplay or characterization such as Tingle, Ashley Graham (GA), and The Outsider. Now you could make the argument that perhaps there should be a dedicated paragraph and a rewrite of the Zhongli Incident or that his reception section could use some work in terms of the overall writing and structure but that doesn't really warrant outright deletion/merging as per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Regardless, I'll look into finding further sources if other editors don't seem to find the current sourcing satisfactory enough.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 03:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Either your rationale isn't really an "argument". That 3 articles you mentioned were being discussed by multiple sources, while this one doesn't really but the gameplay mostly; this falls under gamecruft. Adding more chinese sources or other rankings and listicles, it doesn't help; save your precious time. Only the Siliconera source were the good one.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 08:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Now this: Adding more chinese sources or other rankings and listicles, it doesn't help; save your precious time. Only the Siliconera source were the good one. I'm getting an impression that apparently, only English sources are of any apparent significance when last time I checked, foreign-language secondary sources count as being equally reliable as their English counterparts per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GLOBAL. By the way, I could also name problems with the sourcing in the articles I've cited as for example, references 26, 27, and 30 of The Outsider article at best only have passing mentions which is insignificant coverage, even if there are decent sources in the other two paragraphs as well as the development section. Regardless, I've since added two more paragraphs going over analysis of his characterization referenced by scholarly sources as well as fully replaced every unreliable source prior to nomination.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 12:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep As a Chinese Wikipedian working on the corresponding Chinese article, I was improving the Chinese article in the past few days. Although I haven't proposed Good Article Nomination yet, maybe you can check the revisions and start translating the new stuff, if that helps. Supergrey1 (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * For the commentary part, I cited four journal articles in the current Chinese version, all reaching the minimum of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Adding them into the English article may help improve notability issues. Supergrey1 (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge To List of Genshin Impact characters. Sources that are reliable in Chinese Wikipedia are not necessarily reliable in English Wikipedia, and editors should probably be cognizant of that before bringing over articles. Wikipedia is also not a popularity contest, per WP:ITSPOPULAR. This article reads like a FANDOM page. If this character really is notable, please include WP:THREE best sources in any language here, because the article lacks sufficient significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of all sources that I could find, probably this was only good one .   Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 08:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that one is pretty good. Although WP:VG/S recommends to replace Siliconera sources with better ones, so it's definitely not enough on its own, much less being the best one in an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you guys only care about English reliable sources listed in WP:VG/S, I can add two more (Dot EsportsGamesRadar+) so we now have three. Multiple news article reporting the recent collab between Genshin Impact and Sanxingdui Museum (Zhongli as the collab character) can also prove notability, though they are in Chinese (Jiefang DailyWenhui BaoSichuan Daily). Supergrey1 (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dot itself isn't a good source that helps notability issue, plus the source just talks about his other name? That's it. On the other hand, its just a passing mentions at the GamesRadar source.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 09:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What you said may be correct, but that doesn't violate WP:GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Supergrey1 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless there is an established consensus regarding the verifiability on Chinese-language sources that remain absent on the English Wikipedia as of writing this, established consensus on the Chinese Wikipedia will do. In addition, can you clarify your point on This article reads like a FANDOM page considering most of the article is paraphrased from secondary sources? This isn't even mentioning the contents within the article itself scholarly sources are being used within the contents since there are currently around four which as Supergrey pointed out, qualifies for WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I've already highlighted two independent references, but I've since translated even further content that has been added from the Chinese Wikipedia as well as replacing any unreliable sources remaining within the article. At this point, there isn't really any good reason to delete this article as secondary coverage has just been further reinforced.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 11:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SuperSkaterDude45: The two Twitter sources and the two Forbes' Paul Tassi sources can also be replaced by other sources. I've replaced them on Chinese Wikipedia. Supergrey1 (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @SuperSkaterDude45: Also, I added a popularity ranking by Japanese media in "Commercial reception," and added more comments on art designs in the first paragraph of "Critical reception." You haven't translated them yet. Supergrey1 (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * After these improvements, now the page looks so much better. Keep. Supergrey1 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: This seems pretty good. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of the Chinese sources doesn't help WP:GNG at English Wikipedia.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 09:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NOTE, sources don't have to be in English to count towards GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is one of the four Chinese journal articles I mentioned (the first article below).
 * Supergrey1 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources listed above by Supergrey1 seem more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The scholar sources make this character meet WP:GNG. As noted by others and WP:NONENG, sources do not need to be in English to meet WP:GNG. Google Translate/DeepL/ChatGPT provide more than good enough translations nowadays to verify content. Jumpytoo Talk 21:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Leaving that canvassed note on the top of the page while not elaborating or participating in the discussion more? At least you have to point out who you were referring to, and why. Also, you forgot to subst: the template. Supergrey1 (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong - I don't mean to upset you or anything. If you still believe the article fails GNG, then say so, and explain your opinions. Saying all these editors who voted "Keep" to be canvassed by someone is not really helpful to the discussion (unless you actually found someone to be canvassing). Supergrey1 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources listed above by Supergrey1 seem more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The scholar sources make this character meet WP:GNG. As noted by others and WP:NONENG, sources do not need to be in English to meet WP:GNG. Google Translate/DeepL/ChatGPT provide more than good enough translations nowadays to verify content. Jumpytoo Talk 21:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Leaving that canvassed note on the top of the page while not elaborating or participating in the discussion more? At least you have to point out who you were referring to, and why. Also, you forgot to subst: the template. Supergrey1 (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong - I don't mean to upset you or anything. If you still believe the article fails GNG, then say so, and explain your opinions. Saying all these editors who voted "Keep" to be canvassed by someone is not really helpful to the discussion (unless you actually found someone to be canvassing). Supergrey1 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 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.