Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vette (Star Wars)

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. Discussion on a possible Merge can continue on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)[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)

Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here also for Vette like Atton. Despite being well written and time searching for possible sources at google search that mainly talks about the character; turns out only about torture and slavery. Kotaku [1] seems to be the only good source while others were about thr croticism of Daily Mail not about the character mainly. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:10, 16 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. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Uses some outright unreliable sources, while most of the others are talking about the story of the game at large. The controversy bits have the same issue as the now-changed Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 article where the actual controversy is greatly overexaggerated to actually fill an article. It's a nothing burger as one might say, given the player isn't forced to do anything bad to her, you literally have to be roleplaying as an evil character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's argument is unconvincing and seems to be about the exact title the article has. The referenced articles were clearly relevant and reliably sourced. I suppose this might be an argument to merge the article as a subsection of something like Depictions of slavery in Star Wars or "...in video gaming", but the fact that it could go to either place suggests that maybe it's fine on its own. (To be clear, I'd also be opposed to an awkward rename like ~~"Vette controversy"~~ (Edit: by which I mean "Criticism of Vette") or "Reception of Vette", but if it helps, think of the article as really on that topic with the character as background, and held together best by a title of simply the character.) SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing that makes her notable is a controversy, that is a problem as it would then qualify as a POV fork from the character article. Characters need to have more to their influence than just inciting a controversy over one trait of theirs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what CSECTION means at all, nor is that what I meant above. Wikipedia covers notable disputes and controversies all the time. CSECTION is about not stuffing all the negative information on a topic into one section, and ideally not a spinoff article (BUT that's where there's already a parent article, which isn't what is being suggested). But we're off topic - I probably shouldn't have even said "controversy" for my hypothetical article title, but rather "criticism" in the sense of reliable sources discussing her, which is the base Wikipedia notability is made of.

Think about it from the reverse perspective: suppose some good, reliably sourced content exists. (Nom even admits article is "well written.") We shouldn't delete this content just because people can't agree what to title the article that contains that content. I think this content is held together just fine by an article called "Vette", but the nominator was worried that the Daily Mail didn't discuss other character-y parts about Vette enough. Fine, pretend it has a different title then is all I was saying. This happens all the time - we have some articles with the titles of video games that really comply with GNG and the default manual of style rather than the VG manual of style, because they are only borderline notable as games, but are notable for something else. This is the same deal - borderline notable as a character, more notable for something else, GNG is cleanly met (even if the "video game character" guidelines are shaky). SnowFire (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm not particularly sold on Snowfire's argument or the article. I don't think the controversy as presented is enough to carry this subject on its own either, and may be a bit WP:UNDUE with how it's presented here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator created the AfD on the notion of a vaguewave, did no source analysis, and therefore has not established any actual rationale that the topic does not meet the standards of significant coverage. The potential for the shock collar to be used is an aspect of the character because she is portrayed as an actual slave, not unlike how some non player characters are accessible as a romantic option depending on how you choose to interact, which that could be a notable feature depending on how much third party coverage that aspect of the character attracts.

If the controversy, and by extension the character as explained by SnowFire, does not have any lasting significance, Religion Dispatches would not have done an entire case study after the shock value from the controversy died down, just to examine the likelihood of players to explore the potential of having a unsavoury or morally questionable interaction with this specific character. The study goes into great detail examining player agency. And not every source cited on the page is specifically about the controversy, or even specifically about The Daily Mail sensational piece (note that the Daily Mail is not even cited on the page). Some of these sources exist in direct response to the Daily Mail's piece, but plenty of their contents also specifically addressed the character directly and in detail. Again, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The article MassivelyOP, a reliable source which directly addresses the subject and in detail, does not even mention the slavery bit.

Lastly, the appropriate and relevant guidelines for consideration here are WP:SPINOFF and WP:NOTMERGE. The application of WP:UNDUE is not supposed to be about whether something should be spun out of a bigger topic as a standalone article, if that is what was implied. "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" No significant viewpoints published by any reliable sources support The Daily Mail's allegations. What would be undue is if reception about the character goes beyond more then one paragraph on the main Star Wars: The Old Republic page. Haleth (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The character seems to be discussed over several pages in this scholarly paper, in addition to the sources that already appear in the article. (I suspect there are other decent sources to be found on Google Scholar.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Milburn Looking through it on Google Books, she's not really discussed in the context of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series: There is definitely some there there, so deletion is out. There are adequate sources for discussing the character at the redirect, but I'm hesitant on whether this is so for as a full article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (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.