Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asuna (Sword Art Online)

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. Kept per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asuna (Sword Art Online)[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)

Just like Sinon and Leafa, the article was still not improved and has no commentary exceot the anime news network source from the concept and creation section about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings. Those merchandise sources doesn't help either with notability and merely saying "that it just exist" (again). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Question But what about the Creation and conception and Critical commentary sections? How are they no commentary about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings? Daranios (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually refer mostly from reception only. Re-edited my rationale, but that along isn't enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sword Art Online characters. Sources are largely about the anime's storyline, rather than Asuna as a character in particular. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the Critical commentary is neither trivial nor based on passing mentions. Together with the Creation and conception section this constitutes a non-stubby article fulfilling WP:WHYN, which is further rounded out by the other sections. So I see neither a policy-based reason for deletion nor how deletion of this article would benefit Wikipedia overall. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with you, and vote to keep this article as well. Historyday01 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At least one sentence long scholarly analysis in this book. Not seeing much else, sadly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the findings above. Also, this is just a reminder that Anime News Network has links below some of their articles to WP:RS in Japanese. They are only reporting the news in English as per this example "via AmiAmi News". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. From some quick searching I found further sources in IGN, a chapter by Steven Foertsch entitled "Metamodernity, American Transcendentalism and Transhumanism in Japanese Anime" (description of Asuna on page 94) [Chapter 3 of Anime, Philosophy and Religion (2023) (ed. Kaz Hayashi & William Anderson, Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press), pp. 73-98 as noted here ], description of Asuna throughout the article "Lost in communication: The relationship between hikikomori and virtual reality in Japanese anime", small mention on page 532 of Zachary Samuel Gottesman's "The Japanese settler unconscious: Goblin Slayer on the ‘Isekai’ frontier", small mention on page 65 of "Getting into the Schwing of Things: Hunter x Hunter’s Progressive Gender Depictions and Exploration of Non-Binary Possibilities" (Masters Thesis). And that isn't even including articles from CBR here, here, here and here. So there are undoubtedly various sources about her. I wish the OP had worked on improving the pages rather than an AfD. As I say over and over in these discussions, such issues could be resolved through editing, rather an AfD. This AfD seems highly unnecessary in more ways than one. Historyday01 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TRIVIAL. Significant coverage is more than just a trivial mention. What are the WP:THREE best sources I'm supposed to look at to prove that she has significant discussion, and not in CBR, which is a content farm that does not indicate notability? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CBR featured a listicle... with Asuna as the focus, not an entry. Plenty of RS commentary for arguably the second most important character in the franchise. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Websites like CBR and IGN never counts as a part of Asuna's character ability. All of them are just a bunch of people's point of views, But not as a character written by a production stuff. Other references are just a merchandise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.143.241.121 (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP notes that There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. It has no articulated opinion in CBR, but we have repeatedly used it in pop culture topics like this one, so your perspective is essentially unsupported and deviates from working consensus. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the extensive sourcing discussed by Historyday01, clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. Also the "listicles/rankings" can still be a contributor to notability, WP:SIGCOV is unequivocal and clear that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The "Creation and conception" and "Critical commentary" sections have decent sources and demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage of this character, and a lot of valid information in the article. Wouldn't work to just merge it over to a list article. Dream Focus 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna burst a bubble here, This seems bias that Asuna is always a favorable character, People saying she's "canon" on every arcs. But she's not a core or main character on some arcs like Phantom Bullet. 103.143.241.125 (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why keeping Asuna? If Leafa and Sinon are just "Nobody's Characters" or minors being removed their entries 103.143.241.125 (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on whatever random group of people notice and show up to participate. I own the Sword Art Online Progressive novels, the writer stating the two main characters should be together at the start, she a main character there. In the anime as well she was in most episodes. Anyway, its about what coverage can be found and if that convinces people the article should be kept. Dream Focus 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current sourcing is competent enough to warrant notability and the references provided by Historyday01 surmount any doubt I have in spite that I admittedly don't care much for Sword Art Online. Doesn't help that the arguments for deletion are either broad or ignore the other sources established within the article. Yet another instance of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SAO is one of the most popular anime ever created, there is MORE than enough coverage to deem this article notable. I agree with Historyday that this AFD was highly unnecessary and could have been avoid with a WP:PEERREVIEW. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a whole lot of WP:ITSPOPULAR here. What are these examples of "more than enough coverage" in your opinion? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Once again, there are entire articles devoted to the character that are used as existing references, most of which are at least reliable enough to demonstrate notability. There are also scholarly articles that can range from passing mentions to having entire paragraphs dedicating to the series and the characters roles within it. The fact that is consistently used as an example regarding trends and tropes within anime demonstrates at least some academic notability. Again, most of the arguments for deletion are really only vetted against the use of Valnet sources and either ignore or completely omit any mention of the other reliable sources already within the article and I have yet to see an actual and reasonable argument for a merger. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2024 (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.