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. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eren Yeager[edit]

Eren Yeager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This does not pass the requirements of standalone notability. The sources used in the article are all reviews of the various media that the character appears in, and while he is the main character, he is not the primary subject of these pieces. This is a lot of fluff for which there is no need to have anything separate from the character's entry on List of Attack on Titan characters.

There was already a consensus formed at Talk:List of Attack on Titan characters#Proposed merge with Eren Yeager, but Tintor2 kept recreating and asking for the article to be remade again, and recently ChrisGualtieri decided to back him up on this because he feels that a merge/redirect discussion cannot happen on an article's talk page and must be dealt with at AFD per WP:BLAR (not a policy mind you), so I've made this discussion to cover that.

Again, this does not pass WP:GNG because while there are plenty of sources on the article, none of them are significant coverage about this character as an independent and notable entity away from the comics and TV show. Not to mention some of the references Tintor2 dredged up probably do not qualify as reliable sources (Fandom Post and Mangashelf mainly). Everything's reviews of individual episodes or chapters or the show as a whole and Tintor2 has picked the handful of information about Eren to spin this article into how it looks now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources do treat the character as an independent and notable entity. There are sources from outside the series too. I'm surprised you even doubt Fandom Post as a reliable source when there was an entire discussion in the project to treat it as a reliable source.Tintor2 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lot of grandstanding here for a character that has a fair amount of specific comments on the character design, modeling and an interview from the English voice actor - as a starting point for the article. I'm not saying we've exhausted all sources or that this article is as good as it is going to get, but the List of Attack on Titan characters basically recounts the story events and cannot support detailed creation and development and reception of the character. I do not value the Fandom Post or Mangashelf as the best resources, but they are certainly reliable for whose opinions they cite. There is a difference between that and Susan J. Napier's work and Dani Cavallaro, but reviews like that of Jason Morehead include notes that gives insightful criticism, examples and parallels notable protagonists. The article is not bad considering this is from an English-only take on a Japanese program and no one happens to have the artbooks or other materials translated or in their possession to do so. All this strong opposition results in stifling development of articles and ruining the work of others because Ryulong does not value the work or medium enough to simply let something exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's all of like two sentences in the whole of the article that you're talking about. The character modeling is mentioned in the character list. And this is all just English fandom magnification rather than proper notability. A bunch of reviews of the whole of the anime in which there are mentions of this particular character is not significant coverage per WP:GNG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources have reviewed the character himself, and there are references for information on his development, etc. Clearly passes the WP:GNG. Enough valid information to fill an article. Dream Focus 16:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would like to see more independent notability of the character. Regarding the polls paragraph in the Reception, only polls from outside the series should be considered, such as Newtype. The AnimeOne is a user-generated poll of only Attack on Titan characters, and the Guidebook is also Attack on Titan exclusive, so those do not demonstrate notability of the character outside of the series.(fixed in article) Reception should be filtered down to the critic’s analysis of the character, such as the “likable protagonist” and the “brash and opinionated shonen hero”. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC), updated 00:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article contains multiple, reliable, third-party sources that provide critical commentary on the character and establish notability. I would also dispute the claim that none of these sources cover the character as an independent entity. For example, the interview with the English voice actor [1]. Artichoker^[talk] 17:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  So that's one about just the character (or rather his dub voice artist) out of the dozens of others that are just about the TV show and mention the character as part of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just wanted to say that even though I haven't yet supported either side of this debate, the new rework of the article in question done by Tintor2 is great. He has put some good work into this article and I think it is a vast improvement over the previous incarnation, even though it is still far from perfect and in dire need of some improved sources. Chambr (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason the nominator added the notability tag even though the article has as much reception as Naruto Uzumaki or Goku. As a result, I reverted it.Tintor2 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why am I not allowed to do that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because six people in this AFD said it was notable, and no one has agreed with you that it isn't. Every single article tagged for deletion is done so because someone questions its notability, so never a need for redundant tags. Dream Focus 07:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't think the article in question has any problem with notability. Chambr (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has a creation and conception section which is key to establishing the character's notability outside of the in-universe world. The article does need more sources but I feel that this does pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough creation and outside reception for existence. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my above comment and also after thought, I do support keeping this article. Even though it was not much of an article at first, some editors have done a great job improving it. There is no real reason to delete this article. I really think it looks like a consensus is beginning to form on this. Chambr (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per all of the above; this is one user trying to settle a personal feud by attrition by getting the article deleted on a technicality–not gonna happen. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Talk about WP:ABF.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There was a time the article didn't really have much foundation in reliable coverage. Right now, it could still use more sources, but there's just enough so that it passes WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:51, 29 July 2014 (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.