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 Fallout (video game) or a characters list, such as may develop. Star Mississippi 20:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Master (Fallout)[edit]

[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)

Almost the entire reception are entirely made of passing mentions and some listicles that amount to WP:REFBOMB. Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV somehow on google search. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 19:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fallout (video game). Does not seem individually notable - lacks SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: putting aside the fact that this is a good article, The Master is clearly notable as one of the best villainous characters in video game history, which is well-referenced statement, as you can see in the reception section. I completely fail to see how the article lacks SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its from ranking sources, not directly about the character. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a WP:GOODARTICLE. I wouldn't say that it's impossible to delete a good article, but it's a high bar, considering that it's very difficult to produce a meaningful good article without significant coverage in reliable sources. There are older good articles from over a decade ago that could get away with that, but not more recently. "One of the best villainous characters in video game history" is pretty notable, at least in the qualitative sense. The second half of the reception is a little indirect. But the first paragraph demonstrates significant coverage about the character, and it could be easily expanded if people felt this needed more detail. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you found more sources about Master, could you send it here so I could attempt to expand it (I have guilt for opening this afd now). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think you have a point about the second paragraph. But the first paragraph is built on significant coverage that is much more than a passing mention. Even if we are being critical of listicles that are too narrow or short, the one page about The Master from GameSpot is clearly significant. GameSpot declares this to be one of the best game villains, and would qualify as WP:SIGCOV in both a qualitative and quantitative sense. I've seen articles summarize this kind of coverage with 2 or 3 sentences, where this article sparingly summarizes it with one. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also like to see more sources if they exist. The Master seems like an interesting character who has some meaningful individual reception. Dronebogus (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a GA, the article reads well enough. The assertion that just because there aren't multiple RS'es it cannot be notable is a Inverse (logic) argument and doesn't necessarily follow from our notability rules. If anything, this article demonstrates that we've been looking at notability all wrong: If notability is about the ability to write an encyclopedic article, then the fact that this is a decent encyclopedia article is evidence that we've been construing notability too narrowly. That is, two listicles and a couple of quotes don't demonstrate notability.... but maybe an arbitrarily large number of snippets, appropriate arranged... do. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin All "keep" opinions so far are some variation on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:EFFORT - nobody has put forth the supposed sources that grant this article notability. I would legitimately like to see the sources people are citing. If someone doesn't demonstrate hard evidence, that should be considered when judging the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find your assertion here somewhat problematic. You're only writing it because the tally of positions seem to be going in the opposite direction at the time. The closing admin can come to their own conclusion on whether there is a viable consensus that complies with Wikipedia guidelines, every participant has said their piece, so I don't think it's appropriate for you to instruct the closing admin whose position to discard or take into consideration. Haleth (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fallout. This one was painful, and I expanded out the references here to make them stronger. But the problem is there isn't as much examination as one would think, and it doesn't help that all this feels like it could work better as reception alongside the game, especially given how small the rest of the material is, without feeling like overdue weight. I looked through everything I could, I mean literally *everything*...and there isn't more there. I saw the argument was that notability may be too narrow, but I'm going to argue the problem is more the subject here is too narrow to really make it properly work. The thoughts in the reception keep repeating themselves: the master is sympathetic, one of the greatest villains in gaming, pure body horror, and it was novel you could convince him to stop. I really wish there was more thorough examination of him.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. In this case, I think the optimal solution would be the creation of List of Fallout characters or List of Fallout factions and to merge the most relevant information there. I think I'd lean toward keep over delete, but I agree with Zxcvbnm's analysis that the keep !voters to this point have made arguments that aren't relevant to a notability discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found three sources that appears to some substantial discussion about the Master:

Fallout: A Tale of Mutation has devoted anywhere between 15 to 20 pages discussing the Master's in-game role.

Pessimism: Critiques of Religion and Technology in the Fallout Games, from the few preview pages I could glean through searches, has devoted at least a few pages about The Master as part of an extended discussion about his faction of Super Mutants.

Transcendence: A Study on Fallout in the Context of Gérard Genette’s Theory of Transtextuality went into detailed analysis about the Master over a few pages. It's a Master's thesis which appears to have been republished or cited in a couple of other sources, so your mileage may vary on what constitutes "significant scholarly influence".

Merging into another extended article is only a viable or optimal solution if said article actually exists. Haleth (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could this 3 sources be implemented in the article? So we'll see how it turns out, rather than seeing repetition source. I may be convinced that the article could be enough. Thank you. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the 2nd source we should be careful of citogenesis, it literally cites the Master's Wikia page in it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last source additionally at most suggests inspiration for the Master may have come from Carpenter's The Thing and the film Dr. Strangelove. That's the extent of its conversation there. The only sources I feel comfortable with his the book but it's written in a weird meandering way it's hard to gleam anything from the previews, and it seems more to talk about what happened instead of examining it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citogenesis is only an issue in this context, if it was citing the same Wikipedia article we are having a discussion about. Anyway, this article is not based on its Wikia counterpart, otherwise the GA reviewer or any admins who are responsible copyvio regulation would have picked it out already.

More often then not, the reason why peer reviewed academic journals and books may want to cite a Wikia article for their work is because these often contain a neatly compilation of the in-universe or primary material they want to refer to, instead of citing individual pages of a book or the video game in vague numerical terms, and readers who want to cross check the in-universe can simply refer to the Wikia article. Haleth (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the threshold to keep is very close, IMO, but I think the deciding factor is that so much of the secondary sourcing is related to the Master in the game itself; you can (and probably should) include a lot of it in the reception for Fallout. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's still a bit iffy; as David says, the threshold is close, but I think the sources provided - at least in the case of the first and third sources - are adequate to put me on this side of the threshold. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fallout (video game)#Plot. Reviewing the three Haleth sources: (1) Lafleuriel's Fallout: A Tale of Mutation only discusses the Master in context of the general plot, which is then how we should cover the character in proportion. (I.e., it covers other characters and elements of the game and that would not justify separate articles based on that discussion either.) Bainbridge's Pessimism does the same: The Master is only discussed in passing context and is not analyzed in any depth. Denizel's Cybertextual Transcendence is an unpublished master's thesis, which we do not use for purposes of notability. Seeing no other rationales discuss the listicles currently in the article as compelling, it's unclear what sources actually assert this character's notability independent from the game. I can see some content being merged per WP:PRESERVE but since the target article is already featured status, I don't see it as a necessity. Sources on the impact/legacy of the character and game can be worked into the relevant parent sections. czar 03:42, 22 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.