Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soma Cruz (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to List of Castlevania characters#Soma Cruz. ^Complex/_Rational 16:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Cruz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[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)

The article literally had an AfD this year proving it wasn't notable, but I guess we have to do this a second time. The article's reception relies on particularly heavy WP:REFBOMBing, with one of the most content-full sources being a bachelor's thesis of dubious reliability. The majority of others are listicle type articles or trivial mentions in reviews of the game itself. There have not been any new sources made apparent since the previous AfD that prove Soma is a notable character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon review, Soma Cruz meets the criteria set forth by WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION with substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. His character has been the focus of detailed discussions by game developers and in the gaming press, addressing his design, narrative role, and the broader impact on the Castlevania series. These discussions extend beyond routine game coverage, contributing to a broader understanding of his significance in video game history. The character's influence is recognized by industry professionals, who even further affirm his notability. The available sources provide a solid foundation for a standalone article, ala compliance with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability standards. Let games begin!

PD Slessor (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PD Slessor: Given that the previous AfD months earlier found the precise opposite of this, that there were not in fact enough substantial secondary sources, what exactly are the WP:THREE best sources that prove this? Otherwise it amounts to a paragraph-long WP:SOURCESEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, red card. Let the games pause for a moment. This is all fine and dandy, but saying something is notable "because xyz" doesn't help. Please give extensive sources about this subject. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see that much has changed since last AfD in May; this is just name drops [1], this is a trivial paragraph [2] that mentions the character once. No coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - Nothing has changed in regards to sourcing and notability for the character since the previous AFD from earlier this year that resulted in a unanimous consensus that a stand alone page for the character was not appropriate. Discounting the copious amounts of in-game quotes being used as references, pretty much all of the coverage in reliable sources are just ridiculously trivial mentions, or cherry picked quotes from general reviews of the game/franchise that mention him, being used as a WP:REFBOMB to give the illusion of significant coverage. Given that the previous AFD was so recent, had a clear consensus, and that the sourcing issues brought up in that AFD were not fixed or addressed, this really should not have been restored as an article without some kind of discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect I'm afraid that my previous afd will be still the same, but weaker due to the article's improvement. It is shame that a user who worked really hard on the article that is not or almost passing the threshold. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate much work would be lost, but putting a lot of WP:HARDWORK into an article does not make it immune to deletion. The article was also purposely restored from a merge that recently happened, so there isn't really an excuse that "I didn't realize it may not be notable" either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last Afd was closed as merge, but I can't find any merge in the target (It was redirected 31 May 2023). Christian75 (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect still not seeing WP:SIGCOV. Agree that people should discuss before trying to override a consensus. Consensus can change, but it's important to discuss. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. My thoughts generally align with Rorshacma's and Shooterwalker's above, and there is little for me to say that has already been said. I was quite surprised to see this character article recreated after a previous AfD when little new coverage seems to have appeared, and would agree that there is a lack of SIGCOV to support this character. The Night Watch (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I tried rearranging the reception to make it easier to understand again and I honestly don't notice the big problem. There are several articles dedicated to several parts of his character besides reviews such as his alternative portrayal as a villain, the potential media gives him if Netflix makes him a protagonist and comparisons between Soma and other video game characters that are main topic of the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In short, because the sources are either not significant coverage, or does nothing beyond plot summary. Take the sources regarding the animated series - it literally just sprang from an interviewer asking the producer if the character would appear in the series, to which a vague "I can't say anything, but I like the character" response was given. And that is the only one that come close to being a reliable source on the topic. The other sources given are nothing but things like "Top 5" lists in which a couple of sentences are devoted to saying "We think Soma should appear in the series", or the ScreenRant article that does nothing but summarize the plot of Aria of Sorrow, and then say "maybe it will be adapted to the animated series some day". This is simply not significant coverage that provides any analysis of the character at all, and a dozen such sources of similar quality simply does not pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." If those secondary sources are not significant, and only primary sources are, then we get to this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:34, 19 December 2023 (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.