Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagat (Street Fighter)

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 List of Street Fighter characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sagat (Street Fighter)

[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)

I will be honest this is not an AfD I wanted to do. However after rather extensive searching there's not a lot of actual meaningful commentary about Sagat as a character or his design, and far less than most of the cast. I've extensively searched through Internet Archive, google scholar, and done web crawls through various websites and while he's mentioned (often times discussing his gameplay in the context of a particular game) it shows he's iconic to the series, but fails notability as a character. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:22, 25 July 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) 23:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: For the sake of transparency, while this was originally attempted as a WP:BLAR, another editor contested the merge and posted sources on the article's talk page suggesting notability was satisfied by them. However two of the articles were commentary about his gameplay in a particular game ([1], [2]) and the third, Undisputed Street Fighter, added little commentary on his own as is effectively a primary source (per Internet Archive).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There's just too little in terms of significant coverage. And while I'd say the gameplay coverage can be included, it's basically game guide content and doesn't show notability, especially since Sagat was not uniquely discussed (all of SF4 and SF5's cast got their own articles). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't believe Undisputed Street Fighter's a primary source. It is based on information from Capcom interviews, but was not written by Capcom and restates the information in the words of the author. The other two sources analyze his gameplay and a bit of his backstory, making him squeak past GNG even before you get into possible Japanese sources that may exist. I don't think sourcing is particularly incredible but I debate the idea it is obviously non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the two gameplay sources is that they exist not because Sagat is notable, but because Street Fighter is notable. Every character in SFs 4 and 5 got an article like this, so it's not like they went out of their way to write about Sagat just because he's a notable character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't agree with the suggestion that the two sources that analyze his gameplay don't contribute towards the character's notability. For the purpose of this AfD, I think it's irrelevant as to why they wrote about Sagat, as long as the writers and the publications that they employ them are vetted as reliable sources and aren't connected in some way to the publisher or owner of the Street Fighter IP. Haleth (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They concern only one incarnation of a character, and even then strictly on their gameplay in that title and similar articles were done for all the other characters in that title; Sagat's gameplay is not exceptional nor being examined outside of the context of that article. If gameplay articles like that counted for notability we'd literally have articles for nearly ever fighting game character up, not to mention every competitive pokemon, or every character even remotely involved in eSports.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I vehemently disagree that intent is irrelevant. What you're describing - not being a primary source and being reliable - only go to establish that they can be trusted to provide accurate, unbiased information, not that the information they provide is a show of notability. These articles' existence establishes only that Sagat is as notable as th least notable member of the SF4 and SF5 casts. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Really, everyone from SFII's roster should have an article, and Sagat is no exception. The whole roster is so iconic, that I would be shocked if there's not more out there, besides the sourcing brought up here. And if we count gameplay articles, I don't think it's true we would have articles for the vast majority of characters. Not everyone gets a lot of gameplay coverage, at least not without falling into WP:GAMEGUIDE. So I support keeping the article on those grounds. MoonJet (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? You didn't cite anything. Come on, you should know better than thinking that a baseless assertion of being "iconic" is a valid AFD argument. Closing Admin discount this sort of fluff. Sergecross73 msg me 12:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because I feel, in good faith, some editors are arguing more because they like the subject than practicality, I'm going to point out the essay WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES: just because something is iconic, doesn't make it notable. We've seen several examples of that. So repeating "there has to be sources!" does not mean a lot if there are sources to cite. If you want to help, find sources that satisfy SIGCOV, but "I'd be surprised if there wasn't more out there!" is not only not an argument it's a bit rough to people that have tried per WP:BEFORE to find said sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really an argument for keeping the article, per say, just a little benefit of the doubt. If I had nothing else to add besides that, I wouldn't be !voting at all. MoonJet (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone gets gameplay coverage, but Sagat is getting gameplay coverage because every Street Fighter character gets gameplay coverage. This is something that I would expect to show notability of a list of characters, not to say that each individual character is notable if they get this couple of sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly notable and more sources exist.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep The two presented sources by the nominator feels like it should help its notability, but a borderline case. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though no one has elaborated upon the actual merits of these articles. What do these articles show? To me, it seems like they convey "Street Fighter 5 and 6 competitive play is notable." - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The merits appear to be that Sagat and his gameplay is important to the professional Street Fighter scene. One might find this trivial perhaps, if you are not a fan of watching Street Fighter, but that would be an issue of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It still qualifies as establishing context and making the article not indiscriminate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm:: You know every character, especially for titles like SF4, got articles like that. Again you're trying to present the argument that somehow Sagat is unique in this case when he isn't. Also please actually read what articles like WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it's been very well explained how the source doesn't work for notability in their view.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I find it strange to call it IDONTLIKEIT when we're pointing out that the two gameplay articles are indiscriminate. I believe that Sagat is important to the scene, just as many SF characters are, but the point we're making is that these two sources don't show that he's important. Maybe if Sagat was one of like, five characters to get a gameplay article, that would be notable - but he's not. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] @Zxcvbnm: This is a glorified "list of Street Fighter IV characters" article, covering the characters not because they're notable, but because SFIV is notable. Now, looking at the shacknews citation: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Sagat's shacknews article was done because he was a DLC character, and they did this for all of the SFV DLC up to a point. They didn't do it because they found Sagat notable, the least notable SF character would have gotten this article if they were featured as part of the DLC they covered. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either we downgrade IGN as a reliable source because they made all these articles, or we accept that they mean that all of these characters they consider notable. I don't think the fact that there is an article for each character diminishes its significance, unless they were all lumped together in a single listicle somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a ridiculous premise. This is not significant coverage. The fact that you admit that if these articles were combined into a list should be proof that you're not even arguing that the content is significant coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the articles were posted several weeks apart. I'm afraid I don't see what's so ridiculous about saying they are each an independent article. They decided to give a full treatment to each character, and that says something about the characters and their importance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll contend that Crimson Viper and Dudley (Street Fighter) both have more said about them independently as fictional characters in reliable sources, and yet somehow the existence of guides didn't stop you from voting to merge them. In fact, you're the one that [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimson Viper|AfD'd]] the former. It's okay to like a subject Zx and not want to see it merged but at some point you have to look back at the standards you've set and realize it's making you look hypocritical, even excluding the fact you're trying to argue How-To content provides notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says nothing, because the fact that 100% of SF4's cast got one of these articles tells us that IGN would have written about any character in SF4 and give them their own separate articles. It's essentially saying that the SF4 cast as a collective being notable affects the notability of the individual characters, which is silly. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. Viper and Dudley both got 1 and 2 pages, respectively, in Undisputed Street Fighter (unless you count a cosplayer dressed as C. Viper) while Sagat got a 5-page spread. The C. Viper AfD claimed that C. Viper had 5 pages on her, but did not really go into how much coverage was on those pages or what exactly it was. That is why I don't believe I would be a hypocrite for daring to !vote weak keep on Sagat. However, as the "weak" implies, I still acknowledge coverage is slim, yet viable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Character has a degree of importance that ensures his own article, albeit not a highly notable one; the user who proposed the deletion has a point but the article isn't exactly that unnecessary to warrant a deletion for the time being. NanaOn-Sha (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC) sock puppet NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to List of Street Fighter characters. From what I've seen of this discussion, it's mostly a lot of "He has to be notable!" and while I agree, he very likely is, there just don't seem to be enough sources backing him up. General notability doesn't matter much on Wikipedia unless there's sources to back it up. If that wasn't the case, nearly every Pokemon would still have an article right now. I'd love to keep Sagat around and frankly I feel there's some good grounds for a potential revival in the future, but the current situation, from my observations, seems to indicate that there just isn't enough for Sagat to stand on. If some more sources get discovered, ping me, and I'll be willing to change my vote. As it stands, I feel merging is the best option, as it retains all of Sagat's major information. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to make a second comment here, but I feel in good faith there's a heavy amount of WP:ILIKEIT involved in this mess, primarily with some claiming that the character should be notable due to the others or being "iconic", which time and again has been proven to not be a standard with previous AfD's. Additionally despite the claims above, no additional sources have been added to the article, its talk page as part of ref ideas, or mentioned here. The main argument is that at this time Sagat does not pass notability, and that the major sources provided as a counter to that assertion mainly consist of How-To content specific to one specific game with no citeable commentary about the character. Sources may manifest down the road as they have with other character, and they could (and should) be worked onto the character list entry until we have a point the article can be revived. But for a character that is over thirty years old, the fact there is so staggeringly little we can cite is a big moment of pause.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did some searching, and the best I found are some articles from reliable sources (like IGN) mentioning Sagat, but virtually none specifically about Sagat that weren't fan blogs or similar sites. It's doesn't matter how "iconic" Sagat is, he's evidently not iconic enough to receive coverage by reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)

I think delete is a virtual impossibility here as there is a clear WP:ATD even if Sagat is decided to not be notable. I am curious to know if you believe, specifically, that Shacknews and IGN as well as the Undisputed Street Fighter section are not "specifically about Sagat". They seem primarily about him as a character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first article is a self-described guide, which I don't think is a good source, leaving a single article on one specific incarnation of Sagat. I've never hear of Undisputed Street Fighter, so I can't comment on that. That said, I can't see any of these sources in the actual article, so if you want to preserve the article, feel free to add them. Cortador (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed Street Fighter is linked here.

See WP:NEXIST, AfDs are not predicated on what's actually in the article.

I should also say that guides are not restricted for use as sources. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE applies to the content of articles. However, I also recently found this article from Japan Times about how Sagat was used as an ambassador for tourism for Saga Prefecture. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As others have noted, Sagat appears mostly, if not exclusively, in list of one kind or another (e.g. the guide articles exists for all SF4 characters, and the book also covers all characters), indicating that it's less Sagat being notable, and simply the Street Fighter games and franchise. Cortador (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I have changed my vote per arguments above before the discussion was relisted. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per my previous vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't gotta revote, this is just to get more input. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Yeah, checking the sources myself on the article, there isn't a whole lot here. Not sure how this was able to come into existence to be honest. NegativeMP1 (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is evenly divided between those editors wanting to Keep this article and those request a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The reception section is poorer than that of many similar artices we merged. Existence of how-to gaming guides is not very helpful - such guides can be found for many aspects of many games, that doesn't mean they become notable. It's just a quirk of modern day Intenet. If we treated them as SIGCOV, we would suddenly get hundreds of articles about quests or puzzles from various games, in addition to every playable character becoming notable. Nope, nope, nope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 24 August 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.