Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Bryant (Virtua 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 keep. Sandstein 18:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This video game character lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The current article is an amalgamation of every time she was ever mentioned in a listicle, but none sources have gone further than superficial comments about her dress (which would fit fine in the series or individual game articles, if they are even necessary to mention anywhere). She has only passing mentions and no in-depth coverage in a video game reliable sources custom Google search outside of listicles and reviews of the games in which she appears. A redirect to Virtua_Fighter#Characters could be sufficient. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 13:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This video game character has a plenty of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Since 1993. And even the claim of it being "every time she was ever mentioned in a listicle" is false, which I can eaily prove by just adding more. In fact I can just give here's some incomplete and sample more print media sources in just English magazines that I own: EGM 155; Arcade 3; GameStar 1; PSM 4; GamePro 79, 88; Mean Machines Sega 48; Official Sega Saturn Magazine 12, 13, 14, 16, 18; 24; CVG 170; EGM2 18; Dreamcast USA 1, and lots more about various aspects of the character and the article. I've got it written down because I've been preparing to work on Virtua Fighter articles before the deletionist Czar started redirecting them (even the list of characters!) without any discussion. In all, another completely frivolous nomination based on false premises. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please scan those pages so we can see the articles? czar 18:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was going to ask about this as well. Its hard to make a call on whether or not there is significant coverage without any access to the source's content. Its not a requirement per se, but it would make it easier to support your rationale. I don't meant to doubt you, AggressiveNavel, but the article's current status looks much like how Czar describes it. Nothing but fictional, in-universe information and a reception section that merely seems to document every time a journalist has made a passing mention about her being called her sexy or a good fighter... Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what else can one possibly except from a coverage of a fighting game female character, especially a white one (which means an exotic minority character in Japan but who cares), except on how good is she in being female and/or fighting, besides sheer popularity? And in this case, the first 3D-polygonal one but her early 1990s polygoness is discussed already. How about Chun-Li, will we remove Chun-Li? Why not? Why yes? I know you'll disagree on that, but will anyone remain but Chun-Li? Ryu, let's talk Ryu then, what really is he good for? (And dear goodness, "Evil Ryu was noted to be a trope of protagonist gaming characters who reveal an evil alter-ego" - Tropes and characters are different things!) Obviously deletionism is the way, so Ryu's got to go. But OK let's see what can we get else for Sarah let me think, something popular today, like...feminist criticism? Tropes vs Women video on "fighting fucktoys" might be some 3 years late so far, but here's the original feminist criticism of video games, an apparently very influential book from the end of last century, and look who's on the very cover: http://www.amazon.com/From-Barbie-Mortal-Kombat-Computer/dp/0262531682 No, of course she's not from Mortal Kombat (let's not forget to redirect Mortal Kombat characters) but it's a silly book. Oh did I mention even the very list of Virtua Fighters characters was just redirected without any discussion? How is any of this, and all of this, improving Wikipedia in any way? It's not isolated. I'll give you some scans tommorow. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really not interested in debating anything except for its significant coverage in reliable sources, so I'll just wait for those scans then. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: http://imgur.com/a/Ehkmc/all plus [1] that's of course only some. And now let's all move away from unreasonable deletionism like that, generally speaking, please. --AggressiveNavel (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 18:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage clearly demonstrated. AusLondonder (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the sources brought up here discussing the character in detail, I see no good reason for the article not to be kept. Kokoro20 (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm fine with keeping with some of the magazine articles that have been found, but please, someone clean this article up. It should be written according to some of the sources presented here, not all this GameZone voted her "best breasts" garbage that currently makes up her Reception section. (Beyond the fact that its bad writing, it'll keep us from further AFD debates on this. I do understand Czar's nomination, the article's shape is terrible as is.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant coverage and subject is clearly notable. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see anyone actually explicate what out-of-universe coverage makes this character any more independently notable than the other characters she's listed beside. There's that first pin-up spread scan with a paragraph of commentary and the rest are passing mentions from articles about the game, not the character. If this is weight for anything, it's for a section or page dedicated to Virtua Fighter characters, not its own page. czar 23:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As long as she's discussed in-depth, does it really matter if it's out-of-universe coverage? It seems a bit ridiculous to me that her own detailed article must be redirected and crammed into the page for Virtua Fighter characters, all because her coverage is not out-of-universe. WP:GNG trumps WP:INUNIVERSE anyday, which makes no mention of notability anyway. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it particularly noteworthy that she seemed to have whole article's dedicated to her in some of those scans. That is definitely more attention than most individual characters seem to get from fighting games... Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see one scan (the first page, the pin-up article) that can be construed as being a whole article dedicated to her, and it would only amount to a few sentences, at most, in the WP article. (And we have no info on whether it follows/succeeds similar articles for other fighters.) The rest are covered in context of the series, usually a single sentence mention, if you'll take a closer look. My point here isn't to wipe Bryant from the encyclopedia, but to say that she should be covered with due weight. She is not known as a standalone figure but as one of the Virtua Fighter characters and should be covered alongside them (whether in a section or its own list). If she were the subject of dedicated, in-depth coverage, there would be no dispute worth having. czar 18:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with the notion that she's "just another Virtua Fighter character" (someone like Lion Rafale would be more fitting for that statement). Along with Akira Yuki, she's one of the first characters people think of when they think Virtua Fighter. In fact, she's even appeared as a guest character outside the VF series before. But as long as she gets enough coverage, it shouldn't really matter how well-known she is outside of VF. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect for Czar, and how well-known she is outside of VF does matter, from WP:VG/GL - "If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." Rainbow unicorn (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph you've referenced makes no mention of notability, just not to overly detail the article, and before that, it also says simply "A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure". Kokoro20 (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From your last two responses, it seemed relevant to add and I don't believe that you or others have adequately addressed Czar's concerns.

Can you explain how the scans of parts of magazine articles provided by AggressiveNavel are significant, reliable, independent coverage? [2] [3] part of larger character list, see bottom right corner, [4] don't see her on this game review, [5] don't see her, [6] [7] interviews with game creator, [8] review of gameplay, other characters are present, [9] with other videogame merchandise, [10] don't see her, [11] "showcase" with other characters, [12] "showcase" continued, don't see her here, [13] other characters on the page, [14] interview continued.

"she seemed to have whole article's dedicated to her in some of those scans", doesn't look like it to me. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The WP:VG/GL quote you used has been taken out of context and used improperly. If one was to read the entire paragraph of the guideline you linked it would become obvious that the sentence you quoted is about avoiding WP:GAMECRUFT and trivia, and completely irrelevant to notability.

In your second point, you repeatedly claim that the scans don't constitute sigcov as "other characters are present", but that's untrue. WP:GNG clearly states, and I quote, "Significant coverage [...] need not be the main topic of the source material"; thus the presence of other characters is also irrelevant. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of these images are kind of hard to see. But in any case, it doesn't matter that she's not the only character these articles discuss, because under WP:GNG, it clearly says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Kokoro20 (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of her and other characters minor <Oxford dictionary definition(what Google currently displays when you search for "word definition"): lesser in importance, seriousness, or significance> inclusion in articles that are probably game reviews, which will likely go over other aspects of the game(each scan is not a whole article), is relevant to the value of the source no matter what you say. What makes this character stand out from the other characters in the same review, other characters from other articles of the same magazine from which the source came, and the thousands of other characters being included in game reviews that are published all the time? Let's see what others think.

Just a reminder that I couldn't see this character anywhere in some of the scans and that the interviews are not independent coverage. One of the two ask a creator if Sarah is still his favorite character and that's it. For the first two scans I say it's part of a list, or something larger since it's titled "Virtually Perfect", bottom right corner says "Virtual Fox" and it begins with "Why are all our Virtual Foxes so violent?". "Virtually Perfect" appears to be a reoccurring feature in the short-lived Arcade magazine [15] , doesn't seem like a widely known or notable accomplishment. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The presence of her and other characters [...] is relevant to the value of the source no matter what you say" ....no it isn't, and it's not what "[we] say", its what Wikipedia policy says (and quite explicitly too). Point me to the policy which claims on how the presence of other characters diminishes a source's value and then I'll believe you.

The fact that Sarah Bryant doesn't appear in some scans is a non-issue as you could simply just use the ones where she does appear. Keep in mind that plenty of sources exist in the article already and it really becomes quite incredulous how a subject can have so much independent coverage and still somehow not meet sigcov. (I don't understand your argument on how Sarah needs to "stand out" from other characters so I can't respond to that.) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems to me that policies are just being made up here, and what is being said is a contradiction to what GNG says about how coverage doesn't need to necessarily be independent. As for Sarah "standing out", it could be argued that she indeed does "stand out" when she gets more coverage, compared to other Virtua Fighter characters. Kokoro20 (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it specifically say that it isn't relevant? See where we could go with that? Simply saying that it isn't doesn't convince me of anything. What I think it does do is make it less significant, explain to me how it doesn't if you disagree.

That was just general reminder, incase other users comment here, so they don't have to look through it all. There's already some agreement that the sources currently in the article are not good (Czar's nom, Sergecross73's first comment, and me]. And it doesn't matter how many sources exist for a subject if they're not good. Each scan is not a separate article, probably part of a larger game review, and other character are included, her parts in them aren't that big if you look at it this way(to me at least).

WP:GNG clearly says that: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'm assuming you ment to say that for her one question in an interview, insignificant anyways. Remember, each scan contains other characters so it's not really more coverage compared to others and there's some agreement that the sources currently in the article re not good. The source you recently added is a mention [16]. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely, as Sergecross ultimately went with a keep vote. And you're still taking this out of context. When I said "independent", I didn't mean sources that are affiliated with the subject, like their official website or something (which is what that part of GNG is referring to), I was referring to how whole articles dedicated to her are not required. GNG also says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The sources brought up here and in the article fits the bolded criteria.

When I gave my argument about her "standing out", I meant she gets more coverage in sources in general, compared to other Virtua Fighter characters

The source I've added to the article wasn't necessarily to try and establish notability, but to just to add an opinion of Sarah Bryant as a guest character outside of Virtua Fighter. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross's earlier comment is completely valid(see what he said in his keep), until he/she says it's not, AfD is not a vote, there are no sides to this, we can have a mix of agreements and disagreements. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He just said that the article is not currently in a good state, which has no bearing in notability. While the consensus at AFDs are not determined solely by the number of votes, "keep" does overall have 3 more votes, all of which are supported by policy-based arguments. Kokoro20 (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're patently not policy-backed arguments—they're me-too single-sentence pile-ons that say the refbombed list of sources looks good, yet no one has addressed any of the source issues that Rainbow unicorn and I raised. This isn't about whether there is sourcing to say things about the fictional character—obviously there is—but WP doesn't give subjects their own page for that. This is about significance. The general notability guideline is about whether something is a topic in itself. Everything that needs to be said about this character can be said in a small section of a list. "elected her as having one of best breasts in video games"? "the third top 'girl on the Dreamcast' in 2000"? These superlatives are junk and no serious AfD would consider them substantial enough to include in an article, nevertheless be the basis for a dedicated article. The scans are the same story. czar 03:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and Rainbow unicorn: "Patently not policy-backed arguments"? I beg to differ. Over the course of discussion we've outlined repeatedly how the coverage here meets the GNG, how it is significant coverage, and why Sarah Bryant deserves an article. Meanwhile, the arguments put forward for deleting the article are either based upon misinterpretations of policy, or are flat out wrong, or are based on subjective opinion. But since you guys still claim that we "haven't addressed your points", despite the fact that I have, repeatedly, I'll put it to you this time in dot point form, because apparently prose is too hard to understand.

Incorrect argument for deletion: "I've yet to see anyone actually explicate what out-of-universe coverage makes this character any more independently notable than the other characters she's listed beside." This is immaterial; the only reason Sarah Bryant has an article and the other characters do not is that someone had actually bothered to make one for her. Of course, if this bothers you then you could always pitch in, help out and create articles for other characters instead of engaging in deletionism at AfDs. Additionally, this argument for deletion is backed up by no Wikipedia policy - none of the guidelines on notability mentions anything about coverage having to be "out of universe" or that the character has to be "more independently notable than other characters". If you really think that this is backed up by policy, then please supply the link to said policy!
Incorrect argument for deletion: "how well-known she is outside of VF does matter, from WP:VG/GL - "If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers." I've already said it once and I'll say it again: this quote has been taken out of context. Read the entire paragraph over at VG/GL which this quote fits into and you'll see that it is explicitly about gamecruft and completely irrelevant to notability.
Incorrect argument for deletion: the references supplied are not usable as Sarah Bryant is listed with other characters, or in part of a game review. Again, this is backed up by absolutely no Wikipedia policy. Indeed, WP:GNG explicitly claims otherwise with the quote "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If you still disagree then cite a policy that backs up your views, and don't forget to link to it.
Incorrect argument for deletion: The sources present in the article are "not good" (to quote Rainbow unicorn) or "junk" (to quote Czar). Ok, I get that you don't personally like the sources, but no policy whatsoever has been supplied on why they cannot be used. They are all from reliable sources and I am absolutely fine with the sources present in the article. "No serious AfD would consider them substantial enough to include in an article" - don't worry, we are being plenty serious, I shit you not. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you're not going to respond to our breakdown of the sources, which is the only aspect worth discussing at this point IMO, then there's nothing to discuss. I think the above (patronizing) rant is unwarranted—you've already established that you read the GNG to be really permissive. If you have nothing new to add, all the above does is make third parties less likely to address the actual source concerns raised. czar 04:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but... are you serious? As a person with some experience debating IRL all that I can say is that you've pretty much done a stock standard dismissal and forced change of topic, which is 1) rude and 2) very ineffective. Please explain how I didn't respond to your "breakdown of the sources", but, more importantly please explain how you're entitled to expect us to respond to every one of your arguments (which we've tried our hardest to do, backed up by policies and all) when it's obvious that, with a comment like that, you don't give a trifle about ours? Despite being asked multiple times to provide a policy to support your arguments on how 1) Sarah Bryant being listed with other characters or in a game review makes the source worth less, or 2) why "out of universe coverage" is necessary, or even explained how the sources in the article are "crap"? You believe my "rant" to be "patronizing" (when it's actually an explanation on how I responded to your concerns, why they aren't correct, and you specifically asked for it), but what's really "patronising" here is your outright refusal to discuss points raised by other parties or even address concerns that have been asked for repeatedly. Frankly, we're being snubbed here, and you're attitude of superiority on how your source concerns are "actual" while everything else we've asked for repeatedly is "not serious" (and "patently not policy-backed") is impudent and not appreciated.

Look, I respect you and all and what you do for the wiki, but I'm not going to leave a discussion just because you say so, as you've not-so-subtly implied. Especially when my concerns are being brushed aside while I've made effort to respond to yours, including why I believe the sourcing to be useful and appropriate, backed up by policy. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? There is very clearly an impasse not just about this article but in understanding of the GNG vis-à-vis fictional characters—one that has been much better addressed in a more public venue: WT:VG#Character articles. The widespread consensus there answers your two explicit questions (re: not just aggregating mentions from sources and out-of-universe context). So unless someone is going to do a source-by-source breakdown (like Rainbow and I did) explaining how the sources cover her, in specific, in any significant depth at all—that is, not throwaway lines about her skills or breasts—there's nothing to discuss here. And even still, I'm not convinced that would be productive. As for the rest, no one asked you to "leave" and I don't consider this a "debate"—I have zero interest in debating or entertaining the above personal accusations and I hope you'll respect that. czar 15:52, 15 October 2015 (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.