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 Characters of Overwatch. Selectively. Star Mississippi 02:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion (Overwatch)

[edit]

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

Bastion (Overwatch) (edit | 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 WP:GNG as a standalone character - should not have been split off from the main character list. Most mentions of Bastion are trivial or extremely "geeky" and only relevant to fans (such as the articles about Bastion being temporarily cut from the game) rather than regarding Bastion as a character (which makes sense, since Bastion is one of the single least developed characters in the game). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I will try to find further sourcing to flesh out the reception section ........ but this article is quite new — I literally got a notification of its inclusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#New Articles (March 27 to April 2) 25 minutes before the inclusion of the article here at AfD... which I kinda find disheartening. Soulbust (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion/merging is not hatred of a subject or topic and shouldn't be confused as such. On the contrary, it's not wanting to see that topic described in a lackluster way and having the best possible version of something. If an article can only be filled with "junk", it's not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers. It's just having an article for the sake of having it.
As a character who only talks in beeps and boops, he basically has almost no character development outside a single animated short, that isn't a good sign for notability.
It is unfortunate you were disheartened, but clearly if you just wanted to add to Bastion's sources on Wikipedia, the list entry was a fine place to do so. You unilaterally made the decision to split Bastion off, and decisions have consequences if people disagree. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are trying to imply that I have described the character in a lackluster way, then I would have to disagree with that. I think the character being a (functionally) non-verbal robot is irrelevant in regard to if he can be developed. There are plenty of characters who are mute, silent, etc. It means nothing as far as if they can be developed or not. The short isn't some non-discussed thing either (there are plenty of sources that help establish its notability/inclusion in the context of this individual character article).
Also, I believe your "decisions have consequences" wording seems like rather intense and stern wording for something like creating a Wikipedia article on a legitimate subject. Soulbust (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It keeps being mentioned that I split this article from the main character list. I did not do that in what I am assuming is the conventional way. I wrote it from scratch. For transparency. Soulbust (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, you knew the list entry did exist, given that it was a redirect to the character list for 7 years now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah obviously, but I didn't consult that list going into this. Soulbust (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I want to reply/expand on a couple points brought up. First, the topic of splitting. I didn't consult the Characters of Overwatch list to split the Bastion character off into its own article. This is at least somewhat important because it is 1) mentioned in the nomination as something that "shouldn't" have happened; and 2) later mentioned in the context as something that isn't helpful to readers ("If an article can only be filled with "junk", it's not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers. It's just having an article for the sake of having it.")
Using this tool, this article from infobox through categories is 19,961 characters and the section on Bastion in the Characters of list/article is 4,104 characters. Obviously referencing/categories/other formatting account for some of this nearly 5x increase in size. However, it would be disingenuous to assert that the (still) large increase (when excluding that formatting) in size is all "trivial" information. Again, I'm saying what I'm saying now from the perspective of not having looked/consulted/copy+pasted the Characters of section during the making of this stand-alone article (or really at any point for a meaningful amount of time, for reasons I will touch on later). This article adds ~14/15K bytes and about 30 new references. I want to be very clear here. I am not arguing about for a sheer numbers have to automatically justify notability take here. I am only mentioning those numbers to state that there would be a negative effect if merged into the Characters list. Because either we merge most/all of this and create a huge chunk on Bastion (I would argue, perhaps an undue weight chunk). Or we merge minor/no amounts of this and lose a lot of valuable information that only makes sense to include in this such separate article (I disagree with opinions on how information about gameplay elements are trivial and @Masem: would like to hear why that information is being considered trivial so that I can make some improvements in that regard).
Now, the issue of a separate article being "lackluster" or filled with "junk". I don't know what could be considered junk here. This article includes: 1) Development information about the character's characterization and place in Overwatch lore, described and cited in the least fancruft-way possible. Then, 2) Information about the character's development in regards to gameplay elements during the original game's beta period, then post-launch (2017), then OW2's pre-launch and beta period (2021), and that game's post launch (2022); with 2b) information about the character's art/visual design, again presented in a non-fancruft manner.; 3) the character's appearances in video games and other media; and 4) reception to the character. That all might seem obvious to you (whomever is reading) and that's because it is. It's obvious, but more importantly it's tight. There's no distracted or out-of-place "junk" tangent that's included here to try and stretch this out to a ridiculous degree.
And so, back to this article being perhaps "not flattering to the character or helpful to any readers." @Zxcvbnm: I think sometimes in these sorts of AfD discussions we forget that us editors are also readers. The reason why I didn't consult the Characters of Overwatch listing/article in making this Bastion one is because in the past when I've tried to read it for other purposes (i.e. while playing the game, just to look at it, etc.), I've found it really bloated and hard to navigate. Its hard to read. There's no real visual component (whether it be an image, colors, table/chart related to an overview or something) that helps its reading flow. It's just chunk after chunk of text. And some of them, I feel are actually too long for such a listing yet still lack information that could be included in a separate article. I'd actually be in argument of shortening the segments on that listing in favor of expanding/splitting to separate articles (of course, where applicable; like I don't really think Ramattra or Sojourn, for example, would be able to stand-alone with their own article, at least at this moment). These shortened segments in my mind would cover just the basics that could be covered for every character (date they were introduced/announced, voice actor, the most basic of gameplay elements [i.e. tank/damage/support, their current core abilities {I think the development history/reworking of gameplay abilities would be perfect for Development sections in stand-alone articles}], and the most basic of lore elements [country of origin, occupation, in-universe affiliation]). But in that case, Bastion has things past that, like how the Character listing currently mentions The Last Bastion in the Bastion segment? We could remove that and make it less bloated, because there's a Bastion article that exists now. Maybe the onus to do this sort of clean-up is on someone like me, trying to make this stand-alone article. And I'll be cool with doing that. I think it'd be the sensible thing to do.
And finally, I'd like to really better understand where this REFBOMBING takes place, or maybe receive a suggestion @Rorshacma: on how to improve this article in regards to that. Because, the referencing overwhelmingly includes articles about Bastion in specific in one way or another, or mention the character's place in the lore in a thorough fashion (i.e. Polygon timeline source). The only real exceptions are things that help reference contextual information about the game (i.e. Bastion being a defense and then a damage character but we need a source on the context of when/why that change happened, for example). So I don't see which point in the article in where REFBOMBING comes into play. The Reception article includes sourcing to reviews of the game, yes. But the context is important. Those reviews were at launch, and if in a review of the whole game, a specific character is singled out as being "overpowered" (or at least, in the perception of players as being "overpowered"), then is that not a relevant thing to include in the character's Reception section? Does a source citing that information have to be entirely about Bastion? In these review sources, it's not a trivial name drop, as it's much closer to a contextual point about the character's game play reception.
Sorry that this comment was long, but it matters to me to be clear and thorough about this and where I'm coming from on these points. Soulbust (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This whole screed reads like a "no, it is they who are wrong". It's actually rather simple; a character is notable when they have 3 pieces of WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources, that actually puts the character in context. So far, the evidence that those exist has not been shown. This Kotaku article is the only one I can find, and a single article is not enough. Cramming a bunch of trivial mentions there will just make it harder to spot anything significant, if there is any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you got that out of what I said, then either you misunderstood/I miscommunicated or you are purposefully ignoring my point. I'm assuming the former. I didn't say anyone was wrong. I pinged the other users who have added to this conversation asking for elaboration and suggestion on how to improve the points they brought up. That sort of improvement discussion is valid and I feel like should have happened in a talk page convo before an AfD got put up almost immediately after WPVG listed this under its weekly new articles posting. But any rate, like I said over on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Korb, I don't love the idea of WP:THREE because it's arbitrary. But I'll play along. Like you pointed out, this counts as one. Here's two more, and two bonus ones, just in case those three were too Kotaku centric. Soulbust (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree any of those additional ones are SIGCOV. They are either announcements or stats oriented towards fans. And WP:THREE might be arbitrary, but it's the lowest amount where even lackluster sources will still indicate notability. If a couple of fantastic sources exist, a whole article could be based on them; these don't rise to that level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the two Kotaku ones I added are stat-based. And them being oriented towards fans shouldn't factor in to whether or not they are considered "significant coverage" because that guideline has no mention of that distinction one way or the other. Soulbust (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned sources are still valid imo, but I think these present perhaps better examples of SIGCOV: this source about his gameplay and how players felt about it, and this source elaborating on character elements (Mar. 2020). Soulbust (talk) 02:12, 5 April 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.
More