Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Williams (Mass Effect)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Williams (Mass Effect)[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)

Another non-notable fictional character, with no in-depth coverage outside of fan magazines. No real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There's definitely RSes discussing the character and not just "fan magazines" here, though there are also some questionable sources used (I see one Forbes contributor, for example). The character had created some controversial discussions so I don't see any issue in keeping it but merging to the list of ME characters after trimming out some of the unnecessary elements could be possible. --Masem (t) 15:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Masem: It was already part of the original List of Characters. After consideration, I split the article out of the list because to provide coverage of the discussions generated about characters with politically incorrect or religious views will require significant expansion on the prose which may put undue weight on the entire list in itself. Also, the character was featured very prominently in marketing material and demo footage for the series, so while it does not necessarily establish notability, I am under the impression that it is one factor to consider, for e.g. WP:CCOS. Re: Forbes, if you inspect the article, you'll find that Alex Knapp was actually a staff writer when he wrote the opinion piece, not a contributor.Haleth (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PC Gamer, GamesRadar, Gamasutra, VentureBeat, just to name a few, are not fan magazines for the Mass Effect series. I believe it is ridiculous to suggest that an article examining religious issues in video games published by the Institute of Religious Studies under the University of Heidelberg and a published book discussing video game characters fit anywhere near an objective definition of a "fan magazine". I don't believe WP:GNG contains a precise definition of what your assertion of "real world" notability is other then the standard notability guideline. Could you elaborate on how the sources I mentioned are not reliable sources based on guidelines provided by WP:VG/S which provide significant coverage that are independent of the subject? Haleth (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A few more sources I've located and intend to extract and include in the article.
  - https://www.newstatesman.com/mass-effect-andromeda-i-will-play-as-a-woman
  - https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/04/was-this-mass-effect-3-scene-deleted-because-it-touches-on-religion
  - https://nerdist.com/article/gaming-industry-black-activism/ (commentary on black actress playing white character)
  - https://www.cbr.com/video-game-voice-actors-look-like/ (further commentary on voice actress' ethnicity)
  - https://www.thegamesmachine.it/editoriali/137828/ashley-williams-donne-forti-editoriale/ (in Italian)
  - https://www.destructoid.com/stories/you-can-always-get-what-you-want-mass-effect-and-wish-fulfillment-55764.phtml (by Anthony Burch, re. Ashley's involvement in Wrex's potential shooting)
  - https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/mass-effect/mass-effect-arrival-and-social-responsibility-in-s/ (further commentary on Wrex's shooting and comparison made to police violence against ethnic minorities in US)
  - http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/handle/10539/13620 (Research report for University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg)
  - https://www.academia.edu/42997152/Gaming_Politics_Gender_and_Sexuality_on_Earth_and_Beyond (Section of phD thesis awarded by King's College London)

Weak keep or merge this character did provoke some amount of conversation, including reliable third party sources. I could see someone debating the level of detail of that coverage and if it warrants a full article like this. Her significance should be covered somewhere even if it is small. Jontesta (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to easily pass GNG. Even if certain sources are not reliable (and then should be removed) there still appears to be plenty to keep the article. Rhino131 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "In praise - and defence - of Ashley Williams, the most contentious character in BioWare’s sci-fi epic" appeared in Xbox: The Official Magazine and republished on Gamesradar; this is a full-length article discussing the character directly and in detail. "The Right Choice In Mass Effect: Kaidan Alenko" from Venturebeat discusses the character directly and in detail, comparing her role in the story to another character. Some of the other sources are listicles, which I think don't add much to notability, but the Gamesradar/XBox Magazine and VentureBeat sources are legit. The nominator's casual nomination rationale claims that there's "no in-depth coverage outside of fan magazines", but doesn't explain why these sources fail SIGCOV. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, high quality article, good research and writing was done here. Great job overall to the Wikipedia contributors to this article page. Right cite (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. The reception section seems ok, and I wonder why the nominator is ignoring it and not discussing it in any detail? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lazy nomination; either nominator didn't actually read the article or its sources, or it's just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At the very least, why the current sources are inadequate should have been discussed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant keep, these numerous nominations of fictional characters have gotten way out of hand. This is obviously a notable character with a decent article.★Trekker (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: I could see how someone might say that there's issues with WP:DUE weight, with editors overemphasizing certain primary (or even secondary) sources too much. But aside from too much detail and weight in certain statements, I see no issues with this article. There's lots of good references to pass AFD with flying colors. It looks like it even has the potential to be a good article one day. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (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.