Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carth Onasi (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 merge‎ to List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters. Daniel (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Carth Onasi

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Carth Onasi
• Articles for deletion/Carth Onasi (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Carth Onasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here. I'm also having hard time of finding sources at google search that mainly talks about the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Soft Keep I'm not sure why this article was nominated for deletion, but this character seems to be notable within this fictional universe. I would appreciate some clarification on the notability requirements for Fictional characters.--Kerbyki (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Clarification? Most of the sources were listicles/rankings and game reviews that doesn't specifically talk about the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 17:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fictional characters have no special notability requirements: They must be discussed in-depth by at least 3 independent, reliable sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  The words you're looking for are received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nowhere is "in-depth" or "at least 3" policy. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Significant and in-depth are similar terms, and an article is typically considered notable after receiving 3 sources with significant coverage. There are obviously exceptions, of course. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  That is your interpretation of policy. Policy uses the words I quoted. Three is indeed multiple, but so is two. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reining this in a bit: Regardless of the editorial standard of two or WP:THREE third party sources being needed, we're currently at zero here, and this !vote cites no policy and points to zero sources. Sergecross73 msg me 03:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge much like with Revan and Kyle Katarn, it feels too weak. I'm not seeing the importance outside of the SW universe, and even within the sources aren't saying much directly. A cursory WP:BEFORE also doesn't inspire much faith that'll change.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Merge. Cobbled from dozen+ mentions in passing this sadly fails WP:SIGCOV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge what's there isn't particularly strong, but I do feel as though there is some commentary that is worthwhile in the article that may be worth keeping. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge doesn't pass the WP:SIGCOV standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

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.