Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character)

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 Sword Art Online characters#Yuuki. I see a consensus to Redirect this article. Content will reside in the page history if there is anything worth Merging. There was more than one Redirect proposed but this one seems more in-line with the subject of the article and I don't want to prolong this discussion any longer that it already is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character)[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)

Article was barely improved since the January AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online). Kotaku source were the only good one here, but it doesn't really discuss the character at all. The added sources doesn't really help WP:GNG either and it was barely improved like what people said at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 18. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sword Art Online characters#Yuuki, per the last discussion. A merge was already performed on whatever content existed for this character in terms of coverage, so another merge shouldn't be required. A simple redirect will do. λ NegativeMP1 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't say that Kotaku doesn't discuss the character, she is mentioned a few times. Granted, there is a lof plot summary, but a bit of analysis too: Like with the classic Beowulf, Yuuki finds her meaning and immortality in the written word. For her, having her name (and those of her soon-to-pass-away friends) on a virtual wall for all eternity is proof that she existed.. Granted, by itself this is not enough to warrant keeping the article, but it is not nothing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever it is they need to show the WP:THREE anyway. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. That is a user essay, not policy or even a guideline. There is no mandatory "needs three reliable sources" mandate on Wikipedia that is the sole determinant of whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted. It's kind of amazing how frequently editors cite this user essay as if it is policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Or" needs more secondary sources for it pass the GNG threshold. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two would be enough for me, given that SIGCOV asks for multiple sources, and two is multiple. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Kinda. Return this to draft space, restore the original redirect. It's a split of the history of the original article which is actually at Yuuki (Sword Art Online). On being reverted there, the draft author worked under another name and pushed for AfC to accept it. This was misleading at best. This name is incorrect regardless, so just get this out of mainspace. -- ferret (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't know WHAT to do with this. This actually seems to be the original article, which the user unilaterally moved from mainspace to userspace while attempting to dodge the previous AFD? Then recreated it again. And when that got AFD'd, had this moved back to mainspace. Regardless of the split history, redirect, and maybe partial block The dogcat from it. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the AfC user who moved it to a different name and tried to help the user [1]. Anyway, maybe leave the article as is and finish the AfD but salt the article if it ended up being merged as a result. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret Author The dogcat tries to canvass at other user's talk pages. [2] [3] GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Apparent WP:G4. Or just speedy delete if it's a copy-paste move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This exceeds the G4 bar, @Jclemens also said the same thing on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2024_March_18&diff=1214640616&oldid=1214539038 The dogcat (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on the existing sources, as noted by the arguments of other commenters and keeping in mind the previous AfD. I don't know if @User:Geardona would be willing to share their thoughts here or not.Historyday01 (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThoughts, if the original article is identical, Ok? I don't know that, I can't see it I saw it mentioned in the DRV but not wasn't sure if it was affirmative. Im not super into the anime area, so as for notability, im borderline (In summary: I see some coverage, but meh I know how eloquent am I. See Piotrus' comment) Thanks @Historyday01 for the ping, always willing to share my thoughts on something. Geardona (talk to me?) 14:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geardona Please do not work AfC for areas where you cannot judge notability. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a little bit of a stretch for me, you know bold and such, gonna stick in my area. Geardona (talk to me?) 14:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit in the borderline as well, but I'd also be fine with redirect. WP:A&M/ORS is always a useful source for anime-related articles, in combination with what is listed on WP:RSPSOURCES, and using an editor's best judgment. Historyday01 (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found sources that mention Yuuki that maybe can help us, I found them on the reliable websites mentioned. https://www.cbr.com/sword-art-online-characters-asuna-can-cant-beat/ and https://www.fandompost.com/2020/01/24/sword-art-online-ii-complete-collection-blu-ray-anime-review/ and https://www.fandompost.com/2020/01/24/sword-art-online-ii-complete-collection-blu-ray-anime-review/ and https://www.fandompost.com/2016/01/23/sword-art-online-ii-set-4-limited-edition-blu-ray-anime-review/ and https://comicbook.com/anime/news/sword-art-online-yuuki-return-war-of-underworld-anime/ They were only the sources I could find. @DaniloDaysOfOurLives, @PeaceNT, @Piotrus, @Historyday01, @Swordman97, @SuperSkaterDude45, I recommend that the article has the correct title Yuuki (Sword Art Online). Thanks The dogcat (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The dogcat: Not that I'm against preservation of this article but I will comment that Comic Book Resources isn't really seen as a reliable source to demonstrate notability. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45, And are the other sites mentioned reliable? The dogcat (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe Fandompost is a reliable source? I see no staff page, about page, editorial policy, editor in chief details, or staff credentials. It appears to be essentially a group blog, primarily written by one individual. Like CBR, Comicbook.com is see as a poor situational source. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, Why is it mentioned here WP:A&M/ORS The dogcat (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. I couldn't find their about page, seems Beveridge is the editor in chief, but I personally would see this as a fairly weak source. The bulk of the contributors are inactive and there's no editorial policy. Either way, these are not SIGCOV. One is a mere 2-3 sentences in a listicle, the other two are plot retelling. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, There are people who think that CBR and Comicbook.com are reliable sources The dogcat (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good for them. Both WP:A&M/ORS and WP:VG/S caution against their use. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in some instances, CBR and Comicbook CAN be reliable sources (especially if they actually analyze a series), but CBR, like ScreenRant does those atrocious list articles, which are bad. I think ComicBook does the same thing. In terms of Fandompost, it really is pretty weak source... Historyday01 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, @Ferret, [4],[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], Some of these sources may help. The dogcat (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, these cosplay blurbs do not represent sigcov at all. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku is reliable but the article does not have WP:SIGCOV for Yuuki. Animate Times is listed as reliable by A:ORS. But like ferret notes, cosplay blurbs don't prove notility - likewise, I am sure we can find a bunch of Japanese (and not only) reviews of Yuuki figurines - that won't prove anything, merchandise exists as does fan art (of which cosplplay is a part of) for a ton of stuff that is otherwise non-notable. Btw, I started a discussion to add fandompost to unreliable list (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Fandompost). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, [10], [11], [12]. [13], [14], I found more sources that may be able to help. The dogcat (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. Many of these are unreliable, some even WP:USERG. Almost all are just plot summaries. You need indepth significant coverage that discusses the character itself, independent of just relaying the events of the show. (You don't need to ping me, I have the AFD watchlisted) -- ferret (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, [15], [16] [17] Is this source helpful? Sorry if I sent Ping, there are times that after days it is unadded from the monitoring list The dogcat (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No (unreliable, USERG), no (reliable, but still an episode plot retelling), no. (unreliable, BLOG) -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], More sources according to reliable sources of Anime in French. The dogcat (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all passing mentions in relation to brief announcements about a side story. I think you're really failing to understand the concept of WP:SIGCOV. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, At least you can see the source 20 and 22 talk a lot about the character plus Asuna's character also has some sources that don't talk about the character at all which was also discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asuna_(Sword_Art_Online) And another thing may be that FandomPost is reliable as mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Fandompost The dogcat (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no more pings. These sources are not significant in-depth coverage of the character. At this point if you haven't found a smoking gun, you're not going to convince me. The sources you're presenting are getting worse and worse. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the same way. The pings are not convincing me either and I'm not going to change my position. Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References 5, 6, and 7 clear the notability bar: the two Kotaku references are by different authors, and the third is comicbook.com. All are fine RS'es for fictional characters. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. I do think the sources need to be brushed up and improved. Historyday01 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe these, especially 6, represent real in-depth sigcov of the character outside of an immediate plot setting. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, @Jclemens, [23], [24], These sources that mention Yuuki may also help. The dogcat (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... but I don't need further convincing. Once we hit the notability bar, other sources can be used to flesh out the page. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens, Well, okay, but the sources were for the other editors, for example @Geardona, @Historyday01. The dogcat (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I said earlier and agree with Jclemens that once the notability bar is reached, other sources can be used to expand the page. Historyday01 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, my position to keep is very borderline (so a weak keep I guess?)... and I would also be fine with a redirect. Historyday01 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, I have found some pages in reliable sources of Anime in French, can you review them?. The dogcat (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to share such sources, do so here. I'm not going to review anything about this topic on my talk page or anywhere else but in this deletion discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[25], Here I found another source on CBR, I don't know if it's useful but at least it describes the character. The dogcat (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[26], [27], [28], [29], More mentions of the character. The dogcat (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not looking for mentions. We're looking for in-depth significant coverage focused specifically on the character. -- ferret (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user tells us that rankings/lists can contribute to notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAsuna_%28Sword_Art_Online%29&diff=1201181827&oldid=1201106443 The dogcat (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Keep Agree @Jclemens and other sources, I consider that the notability is met but the article should be moved to Yuuki (Sword Art Online) so as not to have 2 article stories with different names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:103E:13:3D38:EDB7:BF90:AE46:7DD5 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
The above should be struck as canvassed meatpuppetry, per Special:Diff/1217108720. If @The dogcat: cannot cease with meatpuppetry and canvassing, a block may be in order. They have already been warned repeatedly. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, If you want I can delete my brother's vote since I don't know how to cross out The dogcat (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sword Art Online: Whilst there are some notable characters from SAO, this isn't one of them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added sources that give us details and mentions of Yuuki. Watch up. The dogcat (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Asuna's Afd, a user explains to us that mentions can also help with notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAsuna_%28Sword_Art_Online%29&diff=1201181827&oldid=1201106443 The dogcat (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ It seems that it is not that strong but at least the rankings/listincles contribute to the notability according to @Satellizer opinion here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAsuna_%28Sword_Art_Online%29&diff=1201181827&oldid=1201106443 I also found another source that talks about Yuuki, [30] The dogcat (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Dream Focus it may meet the notability so I agree. The dogcat (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, @Ferret, @Piotrus, [31], I finally found a reliable source that talks a lot about Yuuki. The dogcat (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing about the character here. It's three quotes and plot retelling. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue reading because if it talks everything about Yuuki. The dogcat (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you here as well. I no longer wish to be pinged here. I'll let other users speak on this topic instead. Historyday01 (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through this and I don't see anything that goes beyond a plot summary or trivial comments. Feel free to ping me with a quote and I'll review it, but the quality of this source does not inspire confidence. We need academic research or good journalism, and what we have is blog/social media-level content for the most part. The best I see is Yuuki, who desperately tried to survive, found the meaning of life, the meaning of life. It's her typical answer, and her words are impressive. and I don't think this is usable (setting aside machine translation half-gibberish results). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.cbr.com/sword-art-online-characters-every-fan-loves-get-too-much-hate/ Her tragic story gets fans emotionally invested and attached. But more than just being a sad story, her tale is one of living life to the fullest even when in critical condition and it's for this inspiring reason that she's liked by fans. https://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/12/sword-art-online-finishes-strong-with-a-powerfully-human-tale/ gives out information about the character, not just plot points. All the coverage considered, its enough to convince me this character passes the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet source like CBR doesn't help notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Redirection and Keep. For all of the dozens of sources brought up here, it is surprising that no further improvement has been done on the article since its nomination. I'm not encouraging REFSPAM but if there are any reliable sources, they should be added as it is unlikely (no, make that impossible) that participants will go through all of the references included in this discussion. It seems like spaghetti being thrown at the wall to see what sticks. It's overwhelming for editors to evaluate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. This article was AfDd once and got changed to a redirect, and should not have been brought back without substantial improvements. Would also like to note that The dogcat has practically been bludgeoning this AfD, and I would advise them to refrain from continuing to do so, since it's just making users more annoyed than anything else. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999, Hello, it's not that it bothers the users, but if it really bothers me, I won't bother you, but I will add comments if I find more sources. Thank you. The dogcat (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's a lot of coverage, but it's all a mix of trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources. I'm just not seeing the significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources—all at once—that WP:GNG requires. Woodroar (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source can help because it is beyond trivial mentions. https://www.cbr.com/sword-art-online-characters-every-fan-loves-get-too-much-hate/ The dogcat (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bringing up the same source over and over again. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBR (Comic Book Resources) is generally unreliable post-2016 (see WP:VG/S) and with only 2 paragraphs about the character this source is absolutely trivial. Valnet pumping out junk article after junk article like this is exactly why they're unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBR situation is more iffy than that, but it can be used in articles. Either way, the notability it provides is iffy at best, and for an article like this it doesn't really help that issue. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even say "iffy". Per WP:VALNET, In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming. Valnet is really just the worst kind of content farm. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. https://www.fandompost.com/2016/01/23/sword-art-online-ii-set-4-limited-edition-blu-ray-anime-review/ It's not that I want to bash but this FandomPost source describes Yuuki several times. The dogcat (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you already mentioned this source above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Despite the bludgeoning, I will state firstoff I don't hold the same opinion of my esteemed colleagues regarding Valnet: if a source from there is saying something substantial I feel it can be used. However, what's there isn't substantial, and what's here isn't either. I don't feel any of the sources combined satisfy notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - When this was examined during an AFD just a few months ago, the current sources were examined, further sources were searched for, and none of them were convincing enough for this character to pass the WP:GNG. A multitude of trivial mentions, plot summaries, and brief mentions in discussions of the series as a whole do not add up to demonstrate actual notability, and spamming every google hit mentioning the character, no matter the quality or actual usability as source in an article, is not doing anything to convince me otherwise. Rorshacma (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorschacma. The third party coverage isn't substantial enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and redirect is a fine WP:ATD. Would also accept small amounts of merging at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 12 April 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.