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 no consensus between keeping and merging. However, that's an editorial discussion and does not require continuation of this AfD as there is no broad desire for deletion as even the nom withdrew. Star Mississippi 02:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kung Lao[edit]

Kung Lao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | [since nomination])

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

Most of the available sources at google shows him appearing at Mortal Kombat X back as old and a little bit commentary, but that's it. This possibly fails third party sources. The sources again on reception sec are crufts. GlatorNator (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters. Reception is mostly listicles; article does not demonstrate it passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: I really can't get behind this one. First Reptile (which rightfully resulted in keep), now this. I mean, I can see where you're coming from with the likes of Baraka, but I always thought this one would be safe. Well, for Kung Lao, we have, in addition to the sources the nom mentioned, this, this, and best of all, this. There's probably more out there. I'll continue to look. Either way, I think it's safe to say that Kung Lao, IMO, passes the tests in what we're looking for in notability. MoonJet (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm glad you found one from Den of Geek, but I doubt there are more, thus failing independent sources. CBR and comic books are the weakest sources out there and shall not be used for notability, unlike The Den of Geek. GlatorNator (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I wouldn't doubt it. Kung Lao is a very popular character. He even co-starred in a game with Liu Kang. ComicBook.com has been discussed here, with consensus leaning towards reliability, and nothing saying it can't be used to establish notability. As for CBR, this discussion indicates it can be used on at least a situational basis. MoonJet (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  CBR is a widely known content farm and the ComicBook.com source is not significant coverage. Throwing random sources at the wall is only going to weaken your case by making it more obvious the character has nothing of note. Den of Geek is solid, but take care not to mix it in with other poor sources. And if Den of Geek's article is all there is, it shouldn't have an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Whatever the case, how about a couple magazine scans? MoonJet (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The EGM interview is a promotional puff piece. The second, absolutely not in terms of notability. They’re also far outdated. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Define "promotional puff piece." It goes into the making of the character and the actor who played him, which is helpful for any character article. Them being "outdate" sounds like a WP:NOTTEMPORARY argument. MoonJet (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The first scan is more about the actor than the character. The 2nd seems usable for general info, but offers no reception. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. So I am definitely no more convinced than I was when I first voted merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per Moonjet.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. The character is notable enough for me to remember jokes about him from my non-English childhood decades ago. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  How in the world is that a valid keep !vote? Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment 2 users above voted without valid argument. WP:NOTAVOTE to the closure. GlatorNator (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Suitskvarts, sure. But KatoKungLee was voicing his agreement with my arguments. WP: NOTAVOTE should only apply to Suitskvarts, unless they can come up with a better argument. MoonJet (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There is WP:JUSTAVOTE though, it's not an argument. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters. Fails N, none of the sources above or in article meet IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV, fancruft. Just because something exists and is mentioned on the internet doesn't make it N. The keep comments above are to obvious promo or don't bother mention sources or guidelines, so they don't merit consideration.  // Timothy :: talk  12:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
• Leaning weak Keep on this one. The sourcing is generally pretty weak, but those magazine sources are more compelling than most of the rest. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak keep I'm with Sergecross for the time being. There are indeed some decent sources (I did remove one lousy one in Cheat Code Central from reception), but the article itself is in dire need of copyediting. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Why didn't you list any of the sources you found?  // Timothy :: talk  02:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I was referring to the ones already in the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Withdraw but leave a clean up tag. I found an IGN about Kung Lao just now and I think it barely passes notability now, withdrawing. GlatorNator (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I object to withdrawing the AfD - I still have not found anything that marks notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Would you mind posting the IGN source for Kung Lao you are referring to? I haven't found any when looking for sources.

  Anyway, I'll be incorporating the sources provided here to the article soon. MoonJet (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  On the contrary, I agree with a stay of execution while viable sources are sought. Kung Lao may not be Liu Kang or Sub-Zero but he's not Drahmin either. Plus it's not as if this can't be nominated again if the effort is ultimately unsuccessful. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If you wish to argue for draftification, feel free. But without any real evidence sources exist, it would be a large waste of time for everyone involved to go through another AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.