Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pharah
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 21:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pharah (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)
When it comes to Overwatch characters, it has some sources, but mostly being written discussing the characters as gameplay elements not about the character on why they matters. Only these sources were usable [1] [2]. There's nothing more, most of them were just discussing her gameplay, thus failing WP:N. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 12:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Redirect A good chunk of the reception section was really development info about her outfits. There's next to nothing there to support a standalone article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Keep per sources found.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Restore redirect Soulbust did not do a complete enough job demonstrating Pharah can stand alone as a character. Fails GNG. Even any Scholar hits I might find haven't really been cited by anyone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't view it as my job to have done so, as this is a collaborative encyclopedia. Regardless, present sourcing covers her development history, as well as reception/controversy. It does enough to pass GNG. In any case, I'll look for more sourcing I guess. Soulbust (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I've added a solid chunk of information and sourcing to all sections in this article including the Reception section, that I know often makes or breaks whether a character shows an ability to clear GNG. Further development/design info has also been added, which is another critical factor. The AfD nomination mentioned two sources as being usable. I'm assuming GlatorNator meant in terms of meeting GNG criteria, as all the sources included are obviously usable (as per... they're used appropriately and in line with guideline and policy). I fully agree with the latter one, though I think this source may perhaps provide a better example of a source helping establish GNG for the character than the former. The Red Bull and Kill Screen sources also provide a considerable amount of coverage.
- I'll look for more sourcing in the coming days, but I think those aforementioned ones in combination with the additional sourcing included in the article provide more than enough basis for a stand-alone article, and I also believe there presently exists a rounded reception section that discusses cosplay, the Indigenous-styled skin controversy, and other societal representation aspects. Soulbust (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- All those sources are discussing her as a gameplay element, not providing notability as a fictional character. Even pointing out the below shipping commentary, they're not actually discussing the character, just that a ship exists.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. For the record, I don't play Overwatch. It's hard to find sourcing that doesn't just cover gameplay, but it's certainly out there. I found an article from The Mary Sue (which is reliable per WP:RS/P) which discusses some information on the fandom's ship with her and Mercy.
It's a well sourced article, but I understand most of that is probably because the game is popular (WP:NOTINHERITED). Still, the race controversy coverage definitely puts this over the edge for me. For that, I think it passes WP:GNG. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC) - Keep. [3] [4] [5] Looking at scholarly sources, I was able to find a few that discuss her in a significant capacity. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- Withdraw with additional scholarly sources above, I decided to withdraw this nom. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I heavily contest the withdrawal of the nom, scholarly source does not immediately mean it is reliable. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. At least one is from a repository of self-published materials. Have these been proven to be vetted at all? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- The Horus article is published and by a biologist/paleontologist, and there's at least 2 standalone book discussions about her cited in the article itself to boot that aren't mentioned above, coupled with the conversation regarding her designs and cultural appropriation already cited in there...I mean do you really want to drag this out?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- A controversy over a single armor set is tangentially related to a character at best. This isn't about her primary armor that she always wears. The Kill Screen article that talks the most about this by far is referring to the ethnic skins as a whole; it is better off as a section in the main "Overwatch character" article. Everything that is currently in the article is tangential at best. Seriously; where is the reception on Pharah's character traits, not just symbolism on her outfit? It doesn't seem like that exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- The symbolism is directly tied to her character as its intended to include Native American imagery in the game, being that Blizzard developed (either from the beginning, or after the fact, depending on how some sources feel this part of her characterization exists as a way to quell the controversy) her as an Indigenous person.
- Kill Screen article doesn't talk the most about it either... as seen here and Kaplan had to directly comment on it as seen here. Tangential is a severe understatement when talking about the discussion of the Raindancer and Thunderbird skins in relation to how Pharah has been received. Soulbust (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- A controversy over a single armor set is tangentially related to a character at best. This isn't about her primary armor that she always wears. The Kill Screen article that talks the most about this by far is referring to the ethnic skins as a whole; it is better off as a section in the main "Overwatch character" article. Everything that is currently in the article is tangential at best. Seriously; where is the reception on Pharah's character traits, not just symbolism on her outfit? It doesn't seem like that exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- The Horus article is published and by a biologist/paleontologist, and there's at least 2 standalone book discussions about her cited in the article itself to boot that aren't mentioned above, coupled with the conversation regarding her designs and cultural appropriation already cited in there...I mean do you really want to drag this out?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
- I heavily contest the withdrawal of the nom, scholarly source does not immediately mean it is reliable. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. At least one is from a repository of self-published materials. Have these been proven to be vetted at all? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 29 May 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.