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 redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. Consensus is to redirect, even after disclosure of the sockpuppetry by the nom. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monika (Doki Doki Literature Club!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Aside from inspiring some Internet memes and being featured in Yandere Simulator, Monika lacks real world notability. Most of the "Development history" section just mentions the game's score, which would be more appropriate on the article about the game rather than a character from it. In addition, only one source mentions her being a meme, which isn't enough sources to warrant a Wikipedia article. How exactly is Monika notable outside of being featured as the main antagonist in one visual novel? ThisIsSparta2007 (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. I think it's pretty bad faith for the nom to nominate this for AfD after the deletion discussion for Freddy Fazbear didn't seem to go their way. Regardless of that, the article is filled to the brim with cruft, relying largely on trivial mentions, in-game levels, and primary sources. Redirecting to the parent topic seems appropriate. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. I'm a huge fan of DDLC, but as you have previously stated, this article has too much cruft and trivial mentions. The other three characters work fine as redirects to the game's page, and so does Monika. The game article covers enough information, with better sources, about Monika, and without the cruft this article has too. A redirect seems like the most logical option here. HaruhiSuzumiyaIsAGod (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Checkuser note: HaruhiSuzumiyaIsAGod is a confirmed sockpuppet of the nominator; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HaruhiSuzumiyaIsAGod. Mz7 (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club! per all aforementioned rationale. There's nothing worthwhile that could be gathered from this character that isn't already adequately stated in the game's article. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Doki Doki Literature Club!. I remember I tried to source this one months ago and I'm shocked there aren't more people talking about the writing in this game. But really most of the articles talk about the writing and character design more generally. I'm sure there is something to WP:PRESERVE. Archrogue (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:POINT, bad faith nom. Additionally, the amount of coverage is enough to warrant an article, see Monika (Doki Doki Literature Club!) § Reception and analysis. The article is even somewhat close to being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Monika, imo. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Even if one would argue that [1] and [2] are significant coverage - plausible - the issue is whether they are reliable, and here I am afraid the answer is 'barely if at all'. There are few passing mentions in more reliable, scholarly sources like [3].Then there is a lengthy discussion at [4] which often mentions her but generally seems to be limited to a plot summary. I see enough mentions of the character in Google Scholar to think that there may be something more substantial out there, or that the combination of 10+ mentions in academic sources, plus the popcultural reception (memes etc.) in lower quality non-academic sources may be enough to give this one a pass. PS. My keep vote is nonetheless weak as I haven't found in-depth, reliable discussion of the character. If you think you did please ping me so I can review it and reconsider my vote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on a procedural basis, per other users about the nominator's bad faith nomination. The nominator appears to be unfamiliar with the WP:GNG guideline and did not make the appropriate deletion argument for this AfD, instead relying on the argument that if Freddy Fazbear isn't notable, then so isn't Monika, or a nebulous and vague concept of "real world notability" when it is not proscribed or defined anywhere in the WP:N guideline. There is clearly significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, the popularity (or lack of or waning etc) of the game itself does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the character is notable or otherwise. Haleth (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep in light of the fact that the nominator is blocked due to a Checkuser confirmation provided by Mz7 that they have engaged in sockpuppetry, and one of their sockpuppets' votes in this AfD have been struck off. Haleth (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Haleth: In my view, this doesn't fall under any of the criteria for speedy keep at WP:SK: the nominator was technically not blocked under any account at the time that they submitted the nomination, and even if they were, because other editors have added substantive comments before the sockpuppetry was discovered, the discussion should be allowed to proceed (with the sock comments disregarded). Mz7 (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was thinking more along the lines of the nomination being unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption by the nominator, and sockpuppetry is an exemplary tactic of disruptive editing. But I understand your point. Haleth (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club, the sources dug up are a bunch of passing mentions, unreliable sources, and sources that only mention the character in an in-universe context, none of which contribute to notability. I am not seeing the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. According to WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I believe most content here is scrapped together from other reviews, only really being mentioned by most. How the entire reception section describes her, these are simply reviews about the game, but they could possibly dedicate their own section explaining her and why they like her. However, this is not the case; the Kotaku source says "Monika’s writing is disarming and sinister" and that's it. Not only that, it talks about her in context of the other three, too.

The entire first paragraph in development is about all four characters as a whole, allowing for easy porting to the main article.

And yes, I know this user is a sockpuppet and this was made out of bad faith, but the general reasoning behind the existence of some articles is invalid. Panini^🥪 10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Doki Doki. Strip out the gameplay and plot elements, and you're left with practically nothing that can't be added to DDLC. --Masem (t) 00:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. IceWelder [✉] 20:30, 30 January 2021 (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.