Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corvo Attano (Dishonored)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. The article has been moved to Corvo Attano and very substantially expanded during this AfD, making parts or most of the discussion moot. A new AfD would be required to determine if the article is still deemed problematic in its new form.  Sandstein  13:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corvo Attano (Dishonored)[edit]

Corvo Attano (Dishonored) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete for lack of notability outside of the game universe. This character completely fails the general notability guidelines. There is no independent discussion of the character in reliable sources; there are solely mentions of him in discussions of the game. There is also little to no likelihood of any future significant discussion in reliable sources. Pertinent information about the character is already at Dishonored#Characters. The Corvo Attano (Dishonored) article does not qualify for a speedy A7, because he is not a "real person". No additional redirect to Dishonored is required, as Corvo Attano already redirects there, and has since 2013. A prod is not useful, as it is highly likely that the author of this article, Chackoony, will contest it. Although the article has recently been created, in searching I found nothing that would suggest in any way notability. For example, in the single reference cited in the article, Corvo is not mentioned except for a link to a list of "Corvo's Gear".  --Bejnar (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete already covered amply in the main article, beyond notability, literally does not exist outside of this universe in these two games. Besides, is a disambig for Corvo Attano, which already rightly redirect to the article about the game. (Good game though. 9.5/10) TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably actually qualifies for A10, since there is nothing that is mergable, and no reason to redirect the disambiguation. TimothyJosephWood 16:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chackoony here, creator of the article in question. Corvo Attano is a main character in a series that is on the fringes of the mainstream, and I figured he ought to have his own Wikipedia article, especially because Emily Kaldwin, the second (and most likely canon) protagonist of Dishonored 2 has her own article as well. If you'd like to delete Corvo's article, I would strongly recommend you begin a discussion on deleting Emily's as well. I wasn't aware inasmuch that Corvo lacks critical discussion outside of the game's forums, though I believe having an article for him anyways is useful for anyone who is interested in starting that discussion, considering that the material available on him right now on Wikipedia is not in-depth enough to support people's conversations around him. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor though, so I defer to your decisions and arguments on deciding whether or not to delete this article. I feel that Emily merits her own article because she has been discussed by many as an important step in introducing strong, independent, female protagonists, and that Corvo needs his own article because we need a central article to link to when speaking about his connections with Emily and the Dishonored universe. It seems to me that regardless of the conversations surrounding Corvo, having somewhat detailed information about him is important. Wikipedia ought to have information surrounding a character who is central to a game that's sold millions of copies, one who ties in so deeply to a game that many point to as one of the best "immersive sims" (a genre of games where the player has a lot of freedom, and their choices are reflected through in-game consequences) in the modern times. A character who is like the magnum opus of Harvey Smith, Arkane Studios, etc., all of these being articles that other Wikipedia editors deemed useful to have. Corvo's just a part of the web, in my opinion, and should have an article, if only to describe how the Arkane Studios team settled on him, how they think about him, and how his actions are reflected in the Chaos system of Dishonored, and how that plays back into the immersive sim genre. The full background of where he comes from can be ignored though, such as extensive details on his homeland.
@Chackoony:, maybe the better option here is to move the article to a draft, so that you can work on it more, and maybe submit it through our Articles for Creation board. You are probably right in the sense that a well constructed article with substantial depth like Emily Kaldwin is unlikely to be deleted. But at the same time, a stub on Corvo, like this one is, doesn't really add much beyond the main article. Moving it to a draft for the time being seems like it might be a good compromise. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood:, that sounds good, but can others find and edit the draft? I only wanted to type up the basics, then let others finish off the article.
@Chackoony:, other users can edit it, but because it will be in "draft space" they are unlikely to come across it. You will likely have to appeal for help in an appropriate forum like WikiProject Video games. I will post there now and see if anyone there has interest. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Corvo Attano (over the redirect, its history doesn't need to be preserved). There seems to be ample depth of coverage of the character specifically, as with the game's other protagonist Emily Kaldwin. Some non-wiki non-blog coverage that I found: Evening Standard, Game Informer, Polygon.com, PC Gamer, Complex. This isn't my area of expertise so I don't know how reliable we typically consider these sources, but the number of them is a strong indicator of notability and this was just by page 2 of Google. I wouldn't object to moving the stub to draft space to build it out instead, it's just not really necessary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now, considering there's only a sentence or two of content, and an obvious redirect target (the subject's game) exists with far better content already present. Write up a draft and put it through WP:AFC or a WP:VG discussion to see if a separate article is warranted at that point or not. I also support moving it to just Corvo Attano - the disambiguation is not necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Working I haven't saved an article in a few days anyway. TimothyJosephWood 14:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Timothyjosephwood: Wow! You finished it! I think we can safely say the article has enough content, and that we've determined its relevancy on Wikipedia well enough to keep it here, right? So can we end the deletion discussion yet?
  • Keep It's now past the 20 mark. It's probably not comprehensive, but it should be enough that it can hang out in mainspace for others to continue to work on. It definitely adds content well above and beyond the main article for the game series, and it establishes that the character appeared in two games, a comic series, and one novel of a planned trilogy. Should fairly easily be enough for WP:GNG. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × a bunch) Keep given Timothyjosephwood's excellent work to expand the article; it has been moved over the redirect to Corvo Attano. @Bejnar: if this expanded version satisfies your concern, can we close this discussion early? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needs sources that show notability outside the confines of the game itself. Almost all of the content added to the character article mainly belongs in the game's article—it's basic gameplay that you would expect of any character. Now if there is coverage about the role of Corvo in video game culture or in some kind of depth outside what any video game character would have, then you have a case. We don't just make articles on every character of every major media release. czar 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Czar It needs sources that show notability outside the confines of the game itself
  • Ummm...No? The only thing it is necessary to demonstrate is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nothing in WP:GNG necessitates fictional characters be notable for anything outside of their fictional universe. Compare the multiple article on Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is a starting point (re-read the notability guideline—it even says it's not a sole requirement/guarantee). Topics are presumed to be important when sources write about them, but when they are only covered as subtopics in context of their parent concepts, we cover them in their parent articles with due weight and only split out (summary style) if warranted by the sources. I can find you a whole lot of coverage on how tracking works in Pokemon Go or on the kinds of real-life interactions the game coordinated, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those concepts warrant their own articles. I can find you a whole lot of coverage specific to the Toad Rally game mode in Super Mario Run—more than that exists for Corvo—but it doesn't mean we need a separate article on it. Final Fantasy characters are subject to the same scrutiny—it's a split out from the game's article based on coverage specific to the characters, ostensibly because there is more to say about the characters than what would be due weight in the parent article. (Though I'd wager that some of those Final Fantasy character articles should be merged back too—some are kept as fait accompli and not because there is cause.) The same principle here: if Corvo is only covered as a character doing character things within Dishonored, it gets covered within the character section of the parent articles. If there is exceptional coverage of the character outside what would be appropriate to cover in the game article itself—such as how Emily Kaldwin was covered for her cultural impact as a female protagonist separate from coverage about the game itself—then there is more cause to split it out of the parent. czar 19:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just let the article speak for itself. Two published books, two announced books, a comic series, and two games. If you can find a place to merge all 18k of that into, then go for it. But I suspect you put more time into typing your criticism than you did reviewing the article. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources don't count towards notability. That he appeared in media is the same as any character who recurs in a series—it pertains to a section/article about the series, not to character notability. If those pieces of media are important, they will be covered in a section/article about the series. czar 03:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can we move the goal post a few more times?
Me: There are lots of good sources, easily meets GNG.
You: GNG is not enough, you need to show that he has importance outside the game.
Me: Look at all this other stuff he appears in.
You: Those are primary sources and don't count toward GNG.
Come now. TimothyJosephWood 11:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that your argument, applied consistently, would delete literally thousands of articles on video game and comic book characters. Marvel characters appear in Marvel media, probably because Marvel literally owns them. TimothyJosephWood 11:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Total mischaracterization. Appearing in comics related to the series is by no measure "importance outside the game". The Notability guideline states clearly that sources affiliated or primary to the subject don't count towards notability the same way that a school's alumni magazine doesn't confer notability on the school. czar 07:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or draft: Firstly, I want to say I appreciate the effort put into creating the article, as well as the effort put into expanding it. But ultimately I don't think there's proper coverage to justify an article on the character, or at least not separate from the games proper. Most sources discuss his powers which are, true, a part of his character, but also vital parts of the game -- and often discussed in terms of general game design and player expression heavily divorced from Corvo himself. In short, I would expect most appropriate analysis of his powers and how they interact with the game and are developed to be on the articles for Dishonored and Dishonored 2 -- and indeed, when discussing Blink we slip into development of it while being Daud.
The tidbit about Corvo's actions as vengeance is interesting, but I've found little else to properly expand these elements, and again it's something that's heavily tied into analysis of Dishonored's main themes that I'd probably expect to find on there first and foremost. (This article might be of use if exploring this angle, incidentally.) The discussion of his various appearances in tie-in media feel pretty weak as well. None of them have received much critical attention, whether positively or negatively or even completely neutrally, so honestly a sentence on Dishonored 2's article about tie-in media starring the PCs being made is probably enough, and if anything more than that is needed it'd probably be best suited to a general series page.
On some of the sources found so far, very little do discuss the character in depth. It's not just a matter of finding any blanket coverage: I would prefer a shorter section, if it provides genuine discussion of a character, in a larger article over newssites reporting on a trailer about the character being released. I'd like to proven wrong here and I have managed to find other articles covering the character (e.g. [1][2][3][4]), but have failed to find enough to personally justify Corvo a separate article from his games. I do see some possibility of potential that I'm not really opposed to drafting it for further development for anyone wanting to pursue it further, but it's not enough for me to endorse a "keep" here. ...Finally, apologies for the wall of text, but evidently I like to type. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded since I wrote the above, and I'm no longer necessarily opposed to keeping it, but as it stands this article still feels heavily flawed -- and certainly not close to GA status. The character's notability is barely proven; yes, the article has 50 references. As I run through them all, the majority of them are completely unrelated to the character. We have 6 that are announcements or reviews of the comic, which hardly cover the character at all. Useful for verification, yes, but certainly not notability -- the idea that a character should be notable because a review in passing mentioned the plot is laughable. The article has been refbombed -- it overloads on meaningless unnecessary citations to give the appearance of notability, when little actually prove it when properly examined. Then there's the coverage of his powers, which again I question if said coverage is actually focused on the character, when most of the attention is on the general open gameplay of Dishonored. The idea we're holding this to another standard than other articles ring hollow; similar deletion discussions are happening time and time again, and articles with improper references are almost always wiped out. The precedent, is as much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, would've been to delete this article as it originally stood. The existence of many Marvel characters who lack any references is the problem, and it's a well-known and accepted one that little effort has been made on due to the immense size of the Marvel world and the nature of a wiki. Truthfully, I doubt whether Emily Kaldwin is properly notability enough for an article, but that's a matter to deal with another time. The appearances in other tie-in media is irrelevant: none of them even have their own article, nor I doubt do any of them really need them, and thus arguments that all this content here about them must remain ring hollow. Again, if said coverage is necessarily, a series article would be better created, than awkwardly contained in this article about one character.
Finally, some of the sources used I question. I don't see anything too weird, but what makes PCGamesN or Gamespur reliable? Yes, I realise that the TF2 mask is obviously true, but you may as well cite TF2 there. And while Point and Click Bait is a satire and can be assumed to not be lying about its joke, what makes their satire worth including?
In any case, I'm no longer of the opinion this article must be deleted, though I find some of the arguments used to keep it questionable. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do question the removal of gaming sites as unreliable, including the removal of a satirical website for publishing a satirical story. Niche topics are covered in niche media, and it's reminiscent of the exhausting AfD for Lustboy a few months ago, where editors completely unfamiliar with the competitions and the game wanted to go so far as to question whether ESPN was truly independent. Beyond that, a satirical website as a source for its own story is very near WP:SELFPUB territory. I also find the drive by {{cn}} tagging as flatly lazy, and like the edit overall, a thinly veiled attempt to press a thumb on the scale which, admin or no, begins to push the limits of assuming good faith.
Moving to draft is more of a sentence to purgatory than anything. I have absolute confidence that the article, unchanged, would sail through AfC with a wink and a nod. That is, were it not weighed down by a prior AfD, that at some point, just became too long to attract much attention. And there here we are again.
And to be clear, where we are is holding this article to a completely different standard than scores of articles on other video game and comic characters, many of which are sourced only to the primary sources themselves (click around on Marvel or DC articles for a while). Moreso, a completely different standard than the character's daughter, whose supposed cultural impact amounts to a few sentences of oh boy, they made a girl character and didn't screw it up, and who, in every way, is objectively a more minor character in the universe than the current one.
But for my part, I'll have to bow out until at least Monday. Apparently my wife and daughter are into this Christmas thing. Personally, I think it's a fad. TimothyJosephWood 15:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After a shower and some thought, precisely what I am implying above is that if the user (who I assume is following this conversation since they felt the need to drive by some time later) does not feel the need to self revert, then I will oblige them a click of the mouse. Of course that is assuming they don't have a well thought out rationale for why a video game website would fail to do what little due diligence is surely required in reporting on abilities in a video game, or why a satirical website lacks whatever conceivable editorial oversight would be needed to make things up. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The video game reliable sources guideline explains why those sites aren't reliable. They have no reputation for fact-checking or editorial quality. czar 07:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You see, the problem here is that, like synopses for books and movies, content that is covered in the actual text and dialogue of the game, may be cited to the primary source itself. So providing a secondary source, even one you find personally distasteful, is beyond what is actually required. Similarly, in the space between WP:SELFPUB and WP:MEDRS, is a range where the quality of source must rise to meet the magnitude of the claim, with exceptionally minor claims requiring exceptionally ordinary sources. For further guidance on sourcing for video games, please see the video game reliable sources guideline. TimothyJosephWood 04:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should not have to point out again, as I did above, that a redirect is not necessary as Corvo Attano already redirects to the game, and there is no ambiguity. --Bejnar (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dishonored#Characters (the main game/series topic), as reinforced by the elaboration above. There remains a demonstrated lack of coverage dedicated to the game's character so as to warrant a content split from the section where such text would rest in the article on the main game/series. czar 18:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion at this point is absurd. A 30k article with 50 references. Finish the equipment and first game sections, and find an editor with access to the full text of the comics and novels, and it's well on it's way to a GA review, not to mention that the second game was just released, and most of what will be written about the character's role in it hasn't yet been written, as well as two books set to be released next year. I would love to see someone ignore this nomination, and nominate it again, and see it get laughed out of AfD. TimothyJosephWood 00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dishonored#Characters - While the work Timothyjosephwood has done on the article is impressive, his argument for keeping it boils down to the premise that any article which has had a certain amount of quality editing put into it must be kept, and I don't find that to be valid. Corva Attano is essentially just an aspect of the video game Dishonored and its licensed adaptations, and thus there's no reason why any notable content about the character should be reiterated in a separate article rather than simply included in the Dishonored article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin IIIa, My argument is very simply that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The argument from article content is not for the notability of the subject, but the practicality of a merger, that is, you cannot merge a 3000 word article into a 300 word section. TimothyJosephWood 15:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, honest question, why would you redirect to Dishonored, and not the sequel? TimothyJosephWood 01:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can we bin this deletion discussion now, @Timothyjosephwood:? At this point, it doesn't seem like anyone's got any good arguments left for keeping it under the shadow of deletion. Also, Timothy has done a fantastic job of populating the page with details and references, so I see no problem with article shortness anymore.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corvo_Attano_(Dishonored)&oldid=1107400087"