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 Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I see a consensus to Redirect this artilce (for now). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Afton[edit]

William Afton (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)

Simply put, the article doesn't have significant, third party discussion in reliable sources. The sources that are here are either primarily unreliable, or fall back on ValNet with little substance (please note while I'm not *against* ValNet sources, the lists being the backbone of an article should give pause). While there was some assumption the recent film may provide articles for notability, a quick search shows that's not the case. Things are further compounded by the confusion as to *which* versions of "Springtrap" count as Afton, which certainly doesn't help matters.

I will take an aside and mention that setting this up, I'm aware this is being frequented by a lot of anonymous and new users: I'd like to direct them to WP:N as the guideline involved here. The matter isn't saying Afton can't have an article, I'm arguing the sources available don't make it viable for Wikipedia's standards, and if you're going to suggest sources, check WP:VG/S for reliability first. I'll also just be safe and point out that AfD's aren't a vote they're a discussion. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. This franchise could definitely use a proper List of Five Nights at Freddy's characters, and I encourage it to be split off from the franchise page and expanded appropriately, but Afton alone does not appear to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The confusion over the characters would probably make that also a bit of a mess I feel. There's also the matter that there may not really be enough to say about the individual characters.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    How the characters are organized is a matter for talk page discussion in the character list. However, it is unquestionable that this franchise should have such a list at this time, all that is needed is for someone to create it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It can only be considered unquestionable if the characters can be proven to first have significant reception as a group. And as Kung Fu Man says, there is a good chance that there will be confusion over the characters due to the puzzle-box narrative of the franchise, leading to a large WP:FANCRUFTy mess. The Night Watch (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters - I tried several times to find adequate sources for something like this. I was holding out and hoping people would praise the character in the film adaptation, but after its critical failure and nothing showing up after a week in theaters, the characters notability is likely dead in the water. I would love for a character as crazy as this to hae an article, but it unfortunately doesn't seem like it can stand in its own.

NegativeMP1 06:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The movie was a runaway commercial success and will almost certainly be getting one or more sequels, so I think there is actually a chance that the character will be notable at some point down the line. Right now, however, not really. WP:TOOSOON applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I would love to see this article restored at its current state later-- I think it's pretty good-- but the sources are not really covering it, as per the above. A quick search for Afton right now doesn't bring up much, but given his setup in the current film, Afton'll have time to shine later. ~GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. I could not find significant coverage of this character's reception after examining movie reviews across multiple days, and skimming Google Books/Scholar. The Valnet sources generally do not lead to notability per WP:VG/S consensus. Best to redirect unless something more significant comes up. The Night Watch (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; it seems obvious to me that this character clearly passes GNG. There are 19 sources, many of which are not Valnet sources. Furthermore, even if we for some reason decide that all the sources in the page are invalid, notability isn't determined by what's in the page itself. Sources absolutely exist because this franchise has had nearly a decade of speculation and reviews. In addition, with the movie coming out recently, even more sources are being made. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:REFBOMB - a zillion trivial mentions still does not equal significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't pass GNG though Di, that's the problem. And assuming a subject should be able to due to age also doesn't work out otherwise we'd have far more Pokemon articles to say the least, let along stuff like the Dead or Alive cast.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• the article is at a good state and although I concede the sourcing is shoddy at the moment I imagine there's enough to keep the article and detail it to Wikipedia standards if you look to older sources that aren't just news about the movie. Also agree with @Di (they-them) that it's premature at the moment since the movie just released- I think it would be more appropriate to revisit the notability status of this article after media attention to it has concluded. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HadesTTW. I found various sources on the character. I think if movie details are added then it definatly can be expanded. If not keep then Draftify it Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @OlifanofmrTennant: What sources exactly? Not doubting you just would probably be good to get a better idea.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kung Fu Man: This [1] history of the character and this [2] this talks about his connection to Micheal in the games and how its undermind by Mike in the movie, and this [3] which talks about the Spring bonnie/Springtrap distinction.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @OlifanofmrTennant: The problem is though none of them are really discussing the character, those are fine for the body (and two of them being Valnet doesn't help as they're not opinion pieces as it were. Compare it to, say Nemesis (Resident Evil) or Merchant (Resident Evil), where the character is being analyzed and getting reactions. That's the sort of sourcing you want to aim for. Even in cases like Valnet if you can get a source like this where it's actively discussing thoughts and reactions on a subject you can cite you can build with that. Do you get what I'm saying? Those sources just don't seem to be present enough for Afton or even Springtrap.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry to ask but can you explain what a Valnet source is? Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here, this may help: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Valnet. Basically Valnet is often encouraged to be avoided for reception because they're a content farm: less discussing something and regurgitating reddit and whatnot for content, or in the case there just giving a blow by blow. You can sometimes get strong sources still from the sites, but you shouldn't build the spine of your article on them, especially a multitude of pages.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, pretty much what Di said, this can be seen in the explosion of pageviews recently, this character is clearly notable and even more sources are bound to appear. self strike, feel free to ignore this WanderingMorpheme 17:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pageviews are not a metric to determine if a character is notable or not. We determine notability though significant coverage from reliable sources. NegativeMP1 17:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I see a lot of users asserting that there must be sources for this character due to the recent film adaptation, or that older sources may exist that provide commentary on the character. The problem is, I have done several preliminary searches on both Google Scholar and Books (no commentary significant turned up on Scholar, no reliable hits at all for Books) and reading the film reviews from various reliable film sources (using WP:FILM/R and Rotten Tomatoes) across over a week after release turns up a dearth of significant commentary on the character, especially its reception. The only source that has a small amount of non-Valnet commentary is the SlashFilm source already in the article, but the article only gives a minor amount of attention to Afton like "he's a terrifying villain like Jigsaw" and nothing super substantial. If the subject is notable, please provide reliable (non-Valnet) sources for it that provide significant commentary on how the character was received, because the majority of the critical reviews have probably already been written over a week after the film's release. The Night Watch (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect While I think Afton has grounds for an article, the sources just don't exist right now. I'd say that it's best this article be recreated if more sources turn up in the future, which seems likely given the character's popularity and the potential of future FNAF movies. Right now, though, a redirect seems the best option. Pokelego999 (talk) 05:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pokelego999, should have an article just not right now. Sebbog13 (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect After looking I have concluded that there arent enough sources, while there may be someday, as of now I think that it is best to redirect it to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. However I think that as there may be enough in the future I thinkdeletion should be avoided (see WP:PRESERVE.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. While there is potential for the character to warrant his own Wikipedia page, I don't think it's substantial enough to justify it now. I'd say redirect for now and come back to the topic if we can get the article to be substantial enough to warrant spinning it out of Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. GeniusReading2310 (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as WP:ATD. Subject doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really have a stong opinion one way or the other. Only that experienced users (not me in this instance) probably shouldn't be directed to AfC in order to move a draft into mainspace. AfD is the correct venue for that discussion. GMG^talk 23:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Characters. Personally, William could get an article if he had enough sources. But he doesn't yet. Perhaps he could get a page sometime in the future. FriendlyGrim (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2023 (PST)

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.