- 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 merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Skarlet (Mortal Kombat)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Skarlet (Mortal Kombat) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG. Reception is literally all listicles and trivial coverage. Would be much better off as a section in the list of characters than split off to a separate, non-notable article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Coverage is all trivial passing mentions largely of the most fringe level websites (TheGamer, CBR, Complex, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep: The Game Informer and Venture Beat sources cited in the article give some important details on the character, as does Syfy, the former two being completely dedicated to her. The character's voice actress has also won two awards. There's quite a few listicles cited, and while they might not be enough on their own to build the article (per
WP:WHYN), I would argue they are when supplementing the aforementioned sources.
MoonJet (
talk) 10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- The VentureBeat sources isn't usable. It reads
This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff. "Community writer" = it fails
WP:USERG.
Sergecross73
msg me 11:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of removing the VentureBeat community writer-cited material from the article, as well as a couple of other definitively unreliable sources, lest they contribute to the false appearance of notability.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 12:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- To be fair, I wasn't too sure about VentureBeat. Though some of the "community writers" used to work for Bitmob. As for Gamenguide, which I noticed you also removed, I've kind of been under the assumption its reliable, due to its privacy policy, and the fact its used in a number of GAs on here. A discussion of it at WP:VG/RS might be warranted.
- Even if we're not counting these sources, I still stand by my keep vote. After searching for some more sources, I just found a review of her as DLC from an archived Fearnet. That's the thing about DLC characters, they tend be reviewed by a site or two.
- I'm currently looking for even more sources. If I find anything good, I'll bring them in here.
MoonJet (
talk) 02:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Fearnet source barely squeaks by SIGCOV, I guess, but the site itself says nothing about an editorial staff. As a very likely to be unreliable source, I am dubious that it can be used. Even if it were reliable I still don't think it's reaching the bar for GNG but there is no evidence that it is.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 10:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
-
Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by
Comcast. My impression is that it was a professionally run outfit with editorial staff throughout its existence, as opposed to being an enthusiast site run by a group of fans. Whether the review article itself, taken together with the other cited sources, constitutes significant coverage is debatable.
Haleth (
talk) 11:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- That is grasping at straws without proof that the site was run with an editorial staff. I'd like to see actual proof of that rather than just vague assertions. In terms of the actual content of the review, it's pretty basic and doesn't go into much depth. All it mentions about her backstory is bookended by a nod to jokes about her blood powers and menstruation... need I say more, it reads like it was written by a teenager.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote again, carefully. I said whether it counts as adequate significant coverage is debatable, because I personally found the review a little short for my liking. What I also said, that "Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by Comcast", as opposed to a long-running webzine that is clearly operated by enthusiasts like say this site, is also fact. I'd be more surprised if a submitted article published by a subsidiary of a major multinational corporation was never reviewed by an editor, but then again, blunders like US Today's retraction of a story about EA being acquired by Amazon do happen. Haleth ( talk) 23:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- That is grasping at straws without proof that the site was run with an editorial staff. I'd like to see actual proof of that rather than just vague assertions. In terms of the actual content of the review, it's pretty basic and doesn't go into much depth. All it mentions about her backstory is bookended by a nod to jokes about her blood powers and menstruation... need I say more, it reads like it was written by a teenager.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
-
Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by
Comcast. My impression is that it was a professionally run outfit with editorial staff throughout its existence, as opposed to being an enthusiast site run by a group of fans. Whether the review article itself, taken together with the other cited sources, constitutes significant coverage is debatable.
Haleth (
talk) 11:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- The Fearnet source barely squeaks by SIGCOV, I guess, but the site itself says nothing about an editorial staff. As a very likely to be unreliable source, I am dubious that it can be used. Even if it were reliable I still don't think it's reaching the bar for GNG but there is no evidence that it is.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 10:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of removing the VentureBeat community writer-cited material from the article, as well as a couple of other definitively unreliable sources, lest they contribute to the false appearance of notability.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 12:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- The VentureBeat sources isn't usable. It reads
This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff. "Community writer" = it fails
WP:USERG.
Sergecross73
msg me 11:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips ( talk) 15:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. This is yet another example of how a character being mentioned in a video game website headline and in listicles does not necessarily mean that there is anything substantial to say about the character that couldn't be sufficiently covered within the parent article. Following summary style, we should only split to a separate article when there is an overabundance of coverage that warrants the split and would create undue weight in the parent list article. czar 16:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge and rd per nom and others. Does not meet reqs for independent notability.
Axem Titanium (
talk) 21:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Independent notability" is not a thing. The term "independent" as defined by
WP:GNG or
WP:SIGCOV explicitly refers to sources, that means any material produced by the article's subject or an entity affiliated with the subject do not count towards establishing the presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article about the subject. The correct question to deliberate on, is whether the aggregated coverage about the subject is adequately "significant". Another important point to consider, is whether its prose is a
content fork that more or less duplicates the material contained in another article that is better established in terms of notability, because that would justify the AfD approach.
Haleth (
talk) 11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect to seem to suggest there is wrong doing here. It's a completely valid editorial decision to say that, if something receives virtually all of its coverage in the context of a parent subject, that it doesn't need to be split out into its own article
Sergecross73
msg me 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- You're missing my point here. I am not disagreeing with the suggestion that this article should be merged and redirected. Without opening a can of worms that has little bearing on the current discussion, all I am saying is, the notion of "independent notability" has no basis on guidelines or policies and makes no sense especially when any given number of related topics are never truly independent from each other in terms of discussion and scope. The primary issue to determine in most AfD cases is the alleged lack of significant coverage from independent RS, which is not a question of editorial decision, and I am not at all incorrect on that point.
Haleth (
talk) 16:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Your comments would make complete sense towards someone arguing for a delete !vote. But not to someone arguing for a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I think that they meant "standalone" notability, i.e. being its own page. It's the height of Wikilawyering to seize on a typo as evidence of bad faith of some kind, I think most of us know what they mean and it doesn't need multiple paragraphs refuting a nonexistent issue.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 17:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- @ Sergecross73: When did I say I am arguing against a merge? I said I am ok with a merge and redirect for this article, if that isn't clear already. I simply decided to speak up over what came after, which in my opinion is a misinterpretation and misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
- @
Zxcvbnm: It isn't a typo. It's not the first time someone used the terms "independent notability" or "independently notable" as if it is an established and vetted norm, much like how another prominent editor often repeated the concept of "real world notability" in deletion discussions which has no basis in any consensus. It is as misleading as some editors who parrot
WP:THREE, merely an editor's personal observation, in discussions as if it is a guideline or policy that everyone is obliged follow. Pointing out a misleading statement that is not endorsed by existing guideline or policy isn't Wikilawyering because it is no different then telling an AfD nominator that they have not provided a deletion rationale or perhaps that they are using AfD as an inappropriate cleanup drive for clearly notable topics. And if you are butting into conversations that aren't actually addressed at you and insinuating that there is bad faith editing involved, then perhaps it says a lot more about you then it does me.
Haleth (
talk) 23:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can't imagine I'm alone in being surprised that you agree with Axem with your comments. I was reading this as an argument against his stance. If you agree with merging then I won't comment further.
Sergecross73
msg me 23:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the position, I simply don't agree with the why.
Haleth (
talk) 23:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, uhhh, I guess this happened while I was enjoying my weekend. FWIW, I think "independent" and "standalone" basically mean the same thing semantically. If it helps, you can replace independent with standalone in your head. It's what I meant when I said it.
Axem Titanium (
talk) 03:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Standalone notability" is still...not an actual guideline or policy. We have concepts like standalone "sequels/prequels", or standalone pages I suppose. But WP:N is pretty clear. Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all. Most of the time, the fundamental question is still whether a topic is entitled to its own page, or covered in various proportions as part of a page about a broader topic.
Haleth (
talk) 03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Then the guidelines do not reflect the de facto reality of how notability is applied and should be updated. The fact that you keep running into experienced editors employing the concept of "standalone notability" in AFDs so often is evidence that the concept is supported and should be enshrined in PAG somewhere. "Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all." I don't think this is true. Notability is applied to articles, not individual sentences in articles. There are plenty of sourced sentences/facts in articles that are mentioned in Wikipedia that do not and should not get their own articles, despite their inclusion being perfectly reasonable within articles. Axem Titanium ( talk) 18:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Standalone notability" is still...not an actual guideline or policy. We have concepts like standalone "sequels/prequels", or standalone pages I suppose. But WP:N is pretty clear. Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all. Most of the time, the fundamental question is still whether a topic is entitled to its own page, or covered in various proportions as part of a page about a broader topic.
Haleth (
talk) 03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, uhhh, I guess this happened while I was enjoying my weekend. FWIW, I think "independent" and "standalone" basically mean the same thing semantically. If it helps, you can replace independent with standalone in your head. It's what I meant when I said it.
Axem Titanium (
talk) 03:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the position, I simply don't agree with the why.
Haleth (
talk) 23:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I can't imagine I'm alone in being surprised that you agree with Axem with your comments. I was reading this as an argument against his stance. If you agree with merging then I won't comment further.
Sergecross73
msg me 23:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- You're missing my point here. I am not disagreeing with the suggestion that this article should be merged and redirected. Without opening a can of worms that has little bearing on the current discussion, all I am saying is, the notion of "independent notability" has no basis on guidelines or policies and makes no sense especially when any given number of related topics are never truly independent from each other in terms of discussion and scope. The primary issue to determine in most AfD cases is the alleged lack of significant coverage from independent RS, which is not a question of editorial decision, and I am not at all incorrect on that point.
Haleth (
talk) 16:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- You are incorrect to seem to suggest there is wrong doing here. It's a completely valid editorial decision to say that, if something receives virtually all of its coverage in the context of a parent subject, that it doesn't need to be split out into its own article
Sergecross73
msg me 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- "Independent notability" is not a thing. The term "independent" as defined by
WP:GNG or
WP:SIGCOV explicitly refers to sources, that means any material produced by the article's subject or an entity affiliated with the subject do not count towards establishing the presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article about the subject. The correct question to deliberate on, is whether the aggregated coverage about the subject is adequately "significant". Another important point to consider, is whether its prose is a
content fork that more or less duplicates the material contained in another article that is better established in terms of notability, because that would justify the AfD approach.
Haleth (
talk) 11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I've took it upon myself to expand the article with some new sourcing, including the Fearnet source I posted above and the
IGN source, as well as expanding upon the Game Informer source. Right now, we have at least
three non-listicles in the reception and a couple more elsewhere. Not to mention, her voice actress winning two awards.
MoonJet (
talk) 12:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Her voice actress won a minor industry award, an accolade for the voice performance, but it is not among the major annual gaming awards we take note of. It does suggest that Beata Poźniak is probably a notable or distinguished individual, but does little with establishing the presumption of a standalone Wikipedia article for the character she played. It certainly isn't Outstanding Achievement in Character, where the character itself is the subject of the accolade. Haleth ( talk) 16:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters - A dozen or so pieces of trivial entries in routine coverage of the MK games or listicles does not constitute significant coverage nor denote any kind of stand alone notability. The closest we have out of all of these sources of actually valid coverage is that the voice actress won a minor industry award, which as mentioned above, is not sufficient for establishing notability for the fictional character she portrayed. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge to
List of Mortal Kombat characters. Although there are two reliable sources covering the character in detail (
Game Informer and
IGN) it either barely passes
WP:GNG or is just an article reliably sourced to the subject indirectly or in passing mention. It's hard to decide, but merging (and/or redirecting) might be the better option here.
Sparkl
talk 14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think of the
Fearnet and
Syfy sources? Both cover her too, neither of which being listicles, and are both media networks, suggesting their reliability, like Haleth talked about above.
MoonJet (
talk) 14:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm curious, but where did you get that Syfy is RS, or is it just your opinion? It might be possible that
Fearnet, with a WP page, could be reliable, but could you find any editorial policies (apologies if I can't find any) that indicates the reliability of these sites, instead of an assumption?
VickKiang (
talk) 03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say, but I don't think both sources are decently reliable, at least from what I've seen. I couldn't find any credentials for both Fearnet and Syfy, and they are both nowhere to be found at WP:VG/Sources. I'm not sure if this is mentioned before or if I forgot, but the author of the Syfy article, Jenna Busch, could be this person, but again, that's just speculation. Sparkl talk 15:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm curious, but where did you get that Syfy is RS, or is it just your opinion? It might be possible that
Fearnet, with a WP page, could be reliable, but could you find any editorial policies (apologies if I can't find any) that indicates the reliability of these sites, instead of an assumption?
VickKiang (
talk) 03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think of the
Fearnet and
Syfy sources? Both cover her too, neither of which being listicles, and are both media networks, suggesting their reliability, like Haleth talked about above.
MoonJet (
talk) 14:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge per all. The coverage adds up to mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, but there is a valid merge target. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. If merge is done, please ensure MERGE IS DONE, not just a redirect. The reception section is worth preserving in its entirety somewhere. I concur it suffers from mostly passing mentions, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 31 August 2022 (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.