Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Belmont

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Belmont[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)

I had initially declined this article at AfC but someone created it anyway, so here we are. I am still of the belief that this article fails WP:GNG. While Simon Belmont is a well-known and notorious character in gaming, there is nothing that indicates he is individually notable as opposed to just being in List of Castlevania characters. This article was WP:REFBOMBed with a bunch of low-quality sources and lists, and I couldn't find any substantive discussion of the character himself. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A merge is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Castlevania characters#Simon Belmont, with no qualms about salvaging any useful content to the parent article. While a reception is there, it’s much lighter than it appears due to the use of listicles and passing mentions. Certainly though, the search term is valid, and I wouldn’t be opposed to someone continuing to incubate it in draft space if actual independent significant coverage comes to light. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is List of Castlevania characters notable though? It's also refbomb'ed, with a lot of primary sources. Did the Castlevania characters ever receive significant stand-alone coverage? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I look at it this way: as it stands, if that’s the way we feel then maybe an AFD for the list is warranted. In the context of this article, with things the way they are, a redirect is warranted. If the character list is deleted or redirected, this as a redirect can be retargeted to Castlevania or one of the game articles - it’s still a plausible search term regardless. But let’s not put the cart before the horse unless we decide to expand this AFD or start a new one for the character list, which for the moment is the most logical target. Red Phoenix ^talk 10:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can I still work on the draft article for this page?(Oinkers42) (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @(Oinkers42): I’d recommend you do some searching for reliable sources that have detailed coverage, not just passing mentions or mentions in lists. The concerns are really about notability, not how it’s written. If you are looking to develop the article, establishment of notability needs to be the first step, not the last. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a recent coverage of Simon on TGCOM (in collaboration with IGN Italy) [1] and at Comic Book Resources [2]. The fact he appears in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate and DreamMix TV World Fighters (none of two being Konami games) also adds to notability. I'm on fence right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reception is just listicles and passing mentions, it doesn't establish any notability. While I'd consider a redirect to List of Castlevania characters, I don't know if even that article passes notability or not and would suggest that be brought to AfD at some point too. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 15:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but potentially rewrite it. I found a few sources that talk about Simon directly, but they're a little "puffy". There are lots of other passing mentions. Someone should probablyy re-organize and summarize them better, and focus on quality over quantity. There's the makings of a decent article here with enough sources. If it's not going that way, then we should discuss whether it's better to write an article about the "Belmont Family", since most of the protagonists are variations on that same theme, and have gained enough notoriety as a sort of meta-character. Archrogue (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, however find some more suitable sources for a cleaner script per Archrogue. Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The reception section is decent, even through it is built on many questionable sources. But some are borderline, at least, and there's plenty of them. He is called fan-favorite by Ars Technica, and so on. I think we can let him stay. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the raw sources have been found. Once this is cleaned up, it might be better off merged. But it's at the stage where the normal editing process can take over. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reliable sources mentioned in the reception section of the article give the character significant coverage. Dream Focus 23:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing more time to see whether incorporation of additional sources and other editorial work can provide a more definitive outcome to the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Regardless of the quality of the article right now, I feel like there's just no way there isn't enough coverage of Simon to get rid of this article. He's an iconic character, and his Smash appearance led to some standalone articles all about him (e.g. [3]) JOE BRO 64 00:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like there's more than enough dedicated RS coverage here. Phediuk (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - am I missing the WP:SIGCOV here? There is presence in reliable sources, but I'm still not seeing significant coverage - i.e. sources actually focused on the character, not merely passing mentions. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Comment - A qoute from WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."" (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't necessarily mean it's worth an article when it could be adequately covered as part of another. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Long article with good sourcing. 176.215.144.107 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 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.