Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gen (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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gen (Street Fighter)[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)

Like the previous nomination of Alex, the reception for this character is entirely listicles and therefore made up of WP:TRIVIAL mentions. Literally everything else is WP:OR. Therefore fails GNG and does not merit a standalone article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's impressive how the long reception section is pretty much just a paragraph version of 'he was n-th on list y, and m-th on list z', which a recent RSN discussion are not reliable and not sufficient for establishing notability. That said, it may be best to merge the reception section to the list of Street Fighter characters, it has some value, unlike the unreferenced plot-summary fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Piotr Spiderone 10:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Piotr's reasoning as well as the WP:GNG concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as information from the reception can easily be folded in the list entry. Disagree that a RSN discussion between 2 or 3 editors can be construed as WP:Consensus. It is exactly what it is, the opinions of two or three editors on a certain viewpoint which is not endorsed or thoroughly vetted by the rest of the editor community. Haleth (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Good example of using listicles as justification for a coat rack of unsourced, in-universe detail. @Piotrus, related to your archived discussion, you might be interested in WP:ROSENBERG. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 03:02, 13 November 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.