Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomfist

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. Nomination withdrawn. That doesn't negate the possibility of a Merge, it just moves the discussion to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doomfist

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reception primarily focused on discussing a fictional character in the sense of a gameplay element from the game they originated in. No indication that their gameplay gave them notability outside of the game itself, nor proper discussion of the character to provide SIGCOV. Attempting to find sources that were not about gameplay ended up fruitless as well. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article is bloated with excessive in-universe and development content with no viable reception to back it up. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 08:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirect to list of OW characters and not delete. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to merge as I should've said that in the first place. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article has next to no in-universe content, so would be real curious where you're seeing "bloat". czar 12:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge despite some few sources at reception, I don't think it meets notability unlike Hanzo (Overwatch), a niche character but has dozens of commentary unlike Doomfist. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Overwatch characters - the IGN source is good, but other than that, reception is very lacking. I don't see passing GNG here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While reception is part of key factors for notability of a video game character, development of that character gleaned through reliable third-party sources that provide significant coverage of the character are also appropriate as part of a character's notability. Additionally, the "fictional" stuff (character bg and the like) are also been covered by reliable third-party sources, rather than the more typical reliance on the primary work itself. --Masem (t) 18:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. 2001:4455:636:D900:94A8:7FBB:249D:9ECA (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This character was discussed and analyzed extensively in reliable, secondary sources: IGN, Paste, PC Gamer. This article does not contain any primary sources and is written exclusively from quality sources so as to minimize in-universe context, unlike almost all WP character articles. There are dozens of articles from reliable sources cited here as a testament to the character's wide coverage. This coverage is specific to the character and is not covering the character as an ensemble member. Our coverage should be similarly proportionate. czar 00:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This got AfD'd because so much of the reception was focused entirely on gameplay. In the article itself, for what was cited, there was one little actually discussing him as an actual fictional character, design wise or character wise. Looking at the IGN ref that feels like it was a bit underutilized. The Paste reference wasn't present at all. Are there more sources discussing that aspect? Because I tried looking before I did this and I didn't turn up enough to give it a decent reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Masem and Czar. Also, even if Paste source isn't currently found within the article, it helps establish GNG. (or as WP:NEXIST puts it, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable.") I think something that's successfully been through the GA process should at least be given some work to it before it gets tagged for deletion. I think a GA-reassessment should probably happen first at least. There are also four sources in the talk page's Refideas template that GlatorNator found; I have further found these sources: 1, 2, 3 that could help with the article. Soulbust (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Andscape reference doesn't mention him much, in fact it's definitely more an in passing comparison to Baptiste, but is it a reliable source? It looks it but I can't find editorial evidence and it's not lists on WP:VG/S.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes I agree with your point about Baptiste, but the source can still be used. Seeing how Andscape is owned by ESPN, I'd go with it being a reliable source. Soulbust (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Between the reception section and the sources brought up in this AfD, there is enough to pass GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I still feel this is going to be weaker, but I'm not going to drag this out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.