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. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article outright. There isn't a consensus on whether that means it should be kept or merged into a list, but that discussion can continue elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Zero SIGCOV" is a serious allegation for an article that cites 40-odd sources. Are you willing to do a source analysis to prove this point? Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material so mentions within reviews may be significant or not significant but that would be revealed by a detailed source review. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siroxo did the source analysis that you didn't feel was necessary. Weird of you to accuse me of hounding when I commented on two of dozens(?) of your AFDs in the past week or so. Assume a little good faith before you cast WP:ASPERSIONS. You are also neither my teacher nor my mother, so please refrain from assigning me homework. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that wordings "You can't just say "WP:BEFORE" if you didn't actually do a BEFORE check" can be considered as an WP:ASPERSIONS or something else (not sure about the policies yet), but you can see below that KFM also disagreed. Still felt like you still have something after Balthier was deleted. Like, just let it go dude. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an aspersion if Siroxo literally did the thing and made it obvious that you did not. Your AFD rationales here and at the other one are very short and not sufficient to demonstrate lack of notability for articles with 40+ sources. If your intention is to get something merged, start a merge discussion. I didn't even realize the Balthier merge was related to you in any way. Sounds like you're the one holding a grudge. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge...but reluctant. I'll admit it's a massively detailed article which gives me pause, but a lot of the sourcing seems reliant strictly on reviews and brief mentions. It's hard to say it stands apart on its own outside of the parent work. It's really well written for what's there so I'd rather be proven wrong if I'm missing a big source in that reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I tried searching material like the one Luke has but surprisingly there's nothing even through the most common sources like RPGAamer or RPGFan. Same with schoolars.Tintor2 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources already in the article demonstrate WP:GNG beyond doubt. I read through the sources cited in the reception section. There are multiple anime reviews and multiple game reviews going in depth describing the character; the characters relationships with other characters; how the character fits in to the story, the world, and the game. Whether it occurs in reviews or other formats is immaterial if the coverage is there. Being relatively stingy with wordcounts about characters I see something like:
AnimeNewsNetwork [1] with > 250 words of SIGCOV regarding the character.
1up.com [2], with > 150 words SIGCOV regarding the character.
Japanator [3] has > 250 words SIGCOV regarding the character
Fandom Post (A site with editorial staff, not to be confused with Fandom.com) [4] with > 250 words SIGCOV regarding the character.
rpgamer [5] with > 150 words of SIGCOV regarding the character
rpgamer [6] with > 100 words SIGCOV regarding the character
Eurogamer [7] with > 100 words SIGCOV regarding the character
Gamespot [8] with > 70 words SIGCOV regarding the character
We should have no trouble constructing a solid reception section and further details in the article with these sources, and indeed editors already have.
A lot of these seem to be just relaying what happened though, not actually discussing hte character. Generally building an article around *just* reviews doesn't work because it often doesn't demonstrate any reception or significance beyond that work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources provide secondary character analysis that gives the reader an understanding of the significance of character without needing to go to the primary sources. We can summarize the secondary sources for an article. For my part, I have never heard of the specific anime or games prior to this AfD, and I feel reading these reviews I have a good understanding of the character now -- the way the character influenced the JRPG genre, the role the character fulfills within and between the stories, the translation from game to film, the narrative arc of the character beyond mere plot, etc.
Some specific highlights of what I'm talking about (these examples are not comprehensive, I'm not trying to rewrite this article in the AfD):
Gay (Japanator) describes that this character affected the genre and stood out at the time -- this is in a review of the anime DVD, taking a retrospective look at the character from a game from several years ago.
Fitch (1up) describes how this character might relate to the publication's readers, and also describes how the character's story is more mature than expected from such a work
Prewitt (RPGamer) analyzes themes of one game, contrasting them with themes of other games and showing how this character is used in establishing such themes.
I have not looked beyond these sources to dig up more, I didn't even check out the listicles in the article, because I don't need to for my own understanding. For WP:GNG, it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. keeping in mind specifically that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I am confident given the sources I listed above I could write a start class or better encyclopedia article on this subject without original research. —siroχo20:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of characters from that game. The reception is long but traditionally built from SIGCOV-failing mentions in passing. That said, I insist on merge, not just redirect, as this is valuable content, researched from many said passing mentions. It should be preserved, but to keep this, we need to show SIGCOV is met, and I don't see any lenghty treatment of this chaeracter that is not jus a plot summary. Ping me if you disagree, preferably with quotations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If every trivial mention in reviews was enough to merit a standalone character article, we'd have articles on every protagonist ever. The WP:SIGCOV is not there to support an article rather than just a list mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm not opposed to citing a review for notability if there's real sigcov in there, but a lot of the sources mentioned seem to just discuss Yuri's role in the plot. There's a couple things, like noting that he influenced the genre, but it's just not enough yet. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied that there are enough secondary sources that discuss the topic. Notably, the topic of the article doesn't necessarily have to be "More on Yuri Lowell", it can be okay as long as the parts that discuss the topic are significant and not in passing - the ANN review of the anime does a good job of this. If a merge is done, it should be a very "nice" merge to something like a Character list, not a merge that is really just a redirect to Tales of Vesperia. SnowFire (talk) 17:07, 13 September 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.