Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrecking Ball (Overwatch)

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. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 23:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wrecking Ball (Overwatch)[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)

This video game character does not need its own standalone page, as all the info that the character needs is in Characters of Overwatch. This character was just released and does not play a key role in Overwatch. The article is written for a wikia page. Not all characters need their own article! Computer40 «»(talk) 07:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Nom hasn't followed any part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives or advanced an argument for deletion. If you feel the page should be merged, you should engage the existing talk page discussion on the topic.

As to standalone notability, the article is treated as a summary style split from the list section and written for a general audience as the subject of multiple dedicated think pieces from reliable, secondary sources. This is easily ascertained from a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar 09:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I will agree the article was created a bit too soon - the character's not yet out for all to play so we should judge on that point, though validly there are sources out there now about the character. It clearly passes a minimum bar for GNG sourcing, so there's no reason to delete, but I would definitely review the article a month or so after the character's been out for a while (eg in about 2 months). However, even in that case, this is clear case for merging, not deletion, should the standalone seem inappropriate. --Masem (t) 13:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Characters of Overwatch. Per my original argument on the talk page, we are just creating these hero articles with sources that pretty much boil down to announcements and initial reactions of it, with crufty lore and gameplay details being used to bloat up the article's size. Yes, the sources are valid, but that doesn't mean we should be creating articles about them within five minutes of the hero being announced. I'd also suggest Brigitte (Overwatch) to be merged for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article seems like it was created a bit early, but it has more than enough sources to meet the notability guideline. JOE BRO 64 11:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mostly on procedural grounds, generally agree with Czar. There doesn't seem to be a direct deletion rationale stated by the nom. AFD isn't really for proposing mergers. -- ferret (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the lot, but trim them all. These are written exactly like topical-Wikia pages, overflowing with fancrufty, trivial detail. We get this in comics a lot, too, though admittedly there are often many more storylines to cover. Bilbo Baggins is more like what a fictional character article should look like here (except the genealogy chart, which is unusual, but probably appropriate given how much genealogies matter in the work in question). For a fictional character who is the subject of a large book series, Harry Potter (character) seems about right. But some of these one-video-game character "bios" are starting to get toward Harry Potter detail level, and it's really inappropriate here. We've dealt with this many times before, with Star Trek, Star Wars, Pokemon, etc. Let fans move the trivia to Wikia or some other site; merge minor characters; keep main character articles lean. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm baffled as to how this character, which has existed for a week, should have sourcing on par with that of your two examples, or how you think this has ungeneralized, "fancrufty, trivial detail" on par with any of your other named examples. Perhaps you can explain on the talk page. czar 10:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing that it's impossible for something that has existed for so little time to have a lot of sources, then maybe it's too soon for that article. Computer40 «»(talk) 21:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that was not Czar's point. He is saying that the comparing this character to figures like Harry Potter and Bilbo Baggins is not great, and implying that the baseline of notability for fictional characters starts with those two characters is not correct. As argued by the other voters, this character has received enough significant coverage to assert notability. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't about what you personally think it doesn't "need", there has to be a demonstrable lack of standalone notability, and per the above users, this article does seem to be a notable character. There is plenty of room on Wikipedia for actually notable fictional characters, this doesn't seem like pure fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, agreed that perhaps made a bit early, but meets notability.QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:19, 8 July 2018 (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.