Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:48, 8 April 2023

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. Seraphimblade 01:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Nightwolf

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!

Nightwolf (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)

Even factoring in Nightwolf's controversy for being an ethnic stereotype, the reception of the article is solely based on trivial mentions and listicles. In fact, it is unintentionally ironic that a section about how he is a reductive stereotype would cite the article "Top 11 Native Americans in gaming". There is no basis here for a standalone article, and it should be redirected to the character list at most. The article suffers from WP:REFBOMB to give the appearance of notability when it really fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:07, 27 August 2022 (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. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect - Too much of the content comes from unreliable listicles, relying on extensive quotes to pad out the content. Everything else seems to be mostly trivial mentions, so it doesn't appear there's any substantial discussion on the character. TTN (talk) 21:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters. I'm certainly guilty of having padded many Mortal Kombat character articles, especially the reception sections, because I was told that it was the right thing to do back in the day. However, time is not kind to the majority of MK characters and they have remained no more than bit players despite their longevity in the series, and Nightwolf is no exception. If this nomination is successful, then there are many other characters that should definitely follow suit. sixtynine 20:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Lots of trivial mentions, not seeing WP:SIGCOV (ping me if I missed something). But merge, not delete. The passing mentions are valuable for a list of characters or such. PS. I did a GScholar search to see if there's any academic discourse of him from the ethnic discourse dimension, but I see only a (very) few mentions in passing. PPS. That said, Nightwolf#Ethnic_representation, while cobbled from passing mentions, is pretty impressive. I'd really prefer to see this rescued rather than merged. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Piotrus: Well, since you prefer to see this rescued, what do you think of the sources Haleth and I just provided? MoonJet (talk) 10:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  They reinforce my preference here for weak keep over merge, although I'll note a pretty much identical case at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Soda Popinski (2nd nomination) which ended up with a merge. Shrug, if a source is found, this can always be restored again, here or there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's identical, since Soda Popinski was never released as standalone DLC content for any video game, which then became subject to critical commentary from RS. Haleth (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep . Nightwolf is a paid DLC character for the most recent MK game, which happened to have attracted some critical commentary. There's an IGN review for the DLC, as well as one from TheGamer. Eurogamer published a an original opinion piece which reflected on the similarities between the DLC character and a previous iteration from a early 90s cartoon, one week after a brief article which announced the DLC itself. There's further coverage from Comicbook.com and ScreenRant surrounding the character's depiction per the DLC. If Nightwolf is a completely new, previously unknown character then I'd question whether there is enough coverage from the aforementioned sources to write a short article at the very least. That is clearly not the case here. Piotrus also made a convincing point, in my view, in that there is enough aggregated coverage from a variety of different sources with regards to ethnic representation of Native Americans in popular media. Haleth (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would argue that pretty much all of these sources are trivial coverage. Some of them might analyze his moveset a little, but mostly ignore Nightwolf as a character. Misplaced Pages is not the place for gamecruft analysis of characters' moves, they should be put in context of why they are important to a typical reader, which these sources cannot really do. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  You're splitting hairs. The reviews from IGN and TheGamer specifically treat the subject in a non-trivial manner, as if it is any other video game commercial product. It's not as part of a compilation of recommendations like this one or as a section in a long form article about the DLC's of MK11. A long form video game review aspects of the subject in detail, but not necessarily with the same proportional focus: it might focus more on gameplay mechanics or character analysis or some other aspect like potential controversies, that's the author's prerogative, but it is still the kind of material that demonstrates evidence of significant coverage. Your argument about WP:GAMECRUFT refers to sources like this or this: these provide detailed instructions on how to perform the character's moves, so they probably cross the line of what Misplaced Pages is not, but it is irrelevant since this types of material is neither cited nor relied upon in the article or in this discussion to demonstrate notability. The purpose of an AfD is to determine whether significant coverage from independent reliable sources about the subject exists, not to scrutinize the potential level of "gamecruft analysis" contained within the prose because that is an editorial concern best handled in talk page discussions with interested editors that want to improve the contents of the article or its parent article. I'd point out that you have actually provided a clear WP:ATD merge-and-redirect solution while failing to provide a proper deletion rationale in your nomination, so there was never any prospect for deletion and another editor could probably close your nomination as speedy keep on procedural grounds, but whatever. Haleth (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  The context of sources and their suitability for use in an article are factors related to determining if they are significant coverage. Articles covering a character solely from a gameplay perspective belong in the article about the game, if they belong anywhere at all. Articles that are purely covering the release of a character in the context of being included in a popular game are completely procedural and inherently do not show notability. It's coverage of the game itself, not the character. If those articles provide meaningful commentary on top of the procedural coverage, that's one thing, but covering it for the sake of covering it is trivial coverage. If you cannot gleam any meaningful content from a source, then it either is completely useless or only useful for meeting verifiability standards. TTN (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Then please, do a proper source analysis for our benefit and articulate how the reviews for IGN and TheGamer lack "meaningful content" or that a review specifically about the character as DLC content is somehow not "coverage of the character" as alleged by you and the original nominator. Everything you just said is generic stuff that can be copied and pasted in any discussion, without being relevant to the actual issues at hand. Haleth (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  What's used in the article speaks for itself, two completely arbitrary fluff quotes on gameplay that don't have any place there. The discussion of the gameplay aspects of characters is only relevent when discussed from a very specific standpoint, not the random assortment of quotes currently used in the article. If it's something you couldn't reasonably expect to see in the main article, it doesn't belong in a character's article. TTN (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  What's used? Read the material again. The aforementioned sources have never been used or cited in the article until I brought them up in this discussion. I haven't edited the page to add content to the prose because that is not the purpose of an AfD. As for your assertion that "it's something you couldn't reasonably expect to see in the main article, it doesn't belong in a character's article", you're going off topic. There's the question of due weight here: without going into excessive detail, there are viable reasons as to why not every minute aspect of a broad topic can, should or need to be covered in significant detail within one page, specifically, the MK11 page which is what you are alluding to. The aforementioned sources represent ongoing, continued coverage of an existing topic, which lends credence to the idea that it is potentially notable to begin with. We are not debating whether a Nightwolf (Mortal Kombat 11 DLC) article should exist, but per common sense, of course coverage about Nightwolf (Mortal Kombat 11 DLC) should be included in an article about the character. If you still refuse to support your statements by scrutinizing in detail, from your point of view, why the content of the reviews are inappropriate or unsuited to be cited and discussed on Misplaced Pages at all, even within an article that is directly relevant, after I've repeatedly asked for your input, then we have nothing further to discuss Haleth (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  PS: Please refer to Doomfist#Description, a GA-rated article, for comparison. As long as it does not go into excessive detail or violate the due weight or "not game guide" guidelines and policies, I don't see any valid concern that prose about a character's gameplay mechanics is somehow inappropriate to include on a Misplaced Pages article, especially on a page that is specifically about the character. Haleth (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Both sources are currently being utilized in the article, to no particular effect. The point about the main article is simple: Is this valuable content that would reasonably exist in the main article under different circumstances, that would then be split out if it took up too much weight, or is it content that would be simply cut from the main article because it has no value? My assertion is that it is the latter because random, unfocused commentary on gameplay is not suitable for a general encyclopedia. There is a reason most fighting game character articles don't have much discussion on it, and those that do are done poorly, like this article. TTN (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree with your characterization of the reviews as "random, unfocused commentary on gameplay", which is ironic considering that factually, they aren't brief snippets as part of a general review of the game or the paid character pass which collects a number of other single-character DLC's. As for the quality of the prose paraphrased from the aforementioned reviews as it currently exists in the reception section, that again is an editorial concern, not a question of notability, which is irrelevant to a AfD discussion per WP:ARTN. Your idea of "value" is subjective, and certainly not a concept that is part of a deliberation as to whether a topic meets the threshold of WP:GNG, so long as they don't violate clear provisions articulated under the information page of what what Misplaced Pages is not. In spite of the fact that you still haven't provided a detailed source analysis from your perspective, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but my position still stands. Haleth (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what the issue is either. These sources talk about more than just his moveset.

  Also, the reviews of the character in the game would not fit into the game's article anyway, because giving individual focus on the character there would constitute as WP: UNDUEWEIGHT. While it's about a character as he is portrayed in the game, it's still about the character, at the end of the day. MoonJet (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: Per Haleth. Nightwolf has some controversy for being an ethnic stereotype, and there's some sources discussing that. I just added one to the article yesterday that goes a bit more in-depth, and here's another one that I have yet to add. And since he was DLC in MK11, we have reviews of him, such as the ones posted above. And here's a lengthy article about the character from CBR. And while I'm more lax with listicles than some other editors (and I must note that even some of the listicles talk about the cultural importance behind the character), these sources I provided are not listicles, nor are they trivial mentions.

That being said, the article definitely could use some cleanup. There's some other sources that can be removed from there too, since Dorkly and Cracked seem to be unreliable, as they are largely humor sites. MoonJet (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep, while a lot of the secondary sources are of questionable reliability, there is enough there to indicate a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Devonian Wombat: Which of the top 3 sources would qualify the article to pass WP:GNG with significant coverage? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm:, this article in Indian Country Today provides a few paragraphs of coverage, and this research piece published by the National University of Distance Education provides SIGCOV also. Admittedly, that is only two sources, but two sources are enough to just barely cause a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: The Indian Country source mostly paraphrases a totally different article, and ostensibly an unreliable source. The only original opinion whatsoever from it is that he is characterized as "savage". Not SIGCOV. My browser marked the PDF as potentially harmful but as CZAR mentioned below, theses are user submitted and not published, so it's not a WP:RS and is totally unusable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The sources and arguments above do not make a good case for notability and therefore keeping the article. Nightwolf has remained a peripheral character in the Mortal Kombat series since his debut in MK3 way back in 1995, and basing his GNG requirements on being a paid DLC in the latest game is ridiculous. Other mentions of him are utterly trivial (an entire article comparing his current design to a decades-old forgotten cartoon — seriously?) or standard glorified press releases typical of a gaming site that are either announcing a new design, moveset or "Easter egg" or simply regurgitating old information borrowed heavily from the MK wiki, all minus any original insight or commentary. He does not have the legitimate non-gaming third-party coverage that major series characters (Sub-Zero, Scorpion, et al.) have received. Heck, Nightwolf isn't even the basis of ethnic stereotyping of Indians in gaming as a lot of folks seem to believe, and is instead just a face in the crowd of listed characters in the two works cited with obligatory brief coverage and then that's that. He receives no special individual attention in either case because he is not worthy of it. It's a cinch in this day and age to look up stereotyping of minority groups in popular media and find a plethora of results. Hence, my previous vote for redirecting to the main MK character article. sixtynine 05:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Nightwolf has remained a peripheral character in the Mortal Kombat series since his debut in MK3 way back in 1995, and basing his GNG requirements on being a paid DLC in the latest game is ridiculous."

  A character's role in a series means little when it comes to Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines. While having a big role does often help a character get more coverage, it doesn't mean characters with lesser roles won't get similar coverage and shouldn't get an article. Why is it ridiculous to base GNG requirements on his DLC appearance? That argument seems to nothing more than an WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion, rather than something based in guidelines.

  "He does not have the legitimate non-gaming third-party coverage that major series characters (Sub-Zero, Scorpion, et al.) have received."

  Define "legitimate non-gaming third-party coverage". There's no guidelines that dictates that elements from a game needs non-gaming coverage.

  "Heck, Nightwolf isn't even the basis of ethnic stereotyping of Indians in gaming as a lot of folks seem to believe, and is instead just a face in the crowd of listed characters in the two works cited with obligatory brief coverage and then that's that."

  So what if he's not the "basis of ethnic stereotyping of Indians" as you claim? There's roughly a page worth of commentary on Nightwolf's ethnic stereotyping in this source I've added, which clearly passes our requirements on significant coverage. This shows he has more importance outside of being just another Mortal Kombat character. MoonJet (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, redirect or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Just so we are clear, everyone else is entitled to a dissenting opinion as to whether the coverage meets their standards of "significant", but the arguments advanced in favour of keeping this article hinge on the individual editors' position that evidence of significant coverage is partly represented by the critical commentary from reliable sources in response to the character as paid DLC in MK11, not the fact that the character is paid DLC in and of itself. Haleth (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Define "reliable sources" in this case in regards to Nightwolf being a paid DLC, other than the usual gaming sites that are more or less shills for developers nowadays and are thus obligated to make such menial content sound important. sixtynine 08:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Define? Why are you asking me to speak for the community, when this speaks for itself? The IGN and TheGamer reviews are written and treated no differently then any other previously published video game review writeups on these sites. You have not provided any evidence that these specific reviews are paid advertising or part of the gaming sites' alleged activities as developer "shills". Anyway, the views you've expressed are irrelevant to this AfD discussion because it is not based on any guideline or policy. It has nothing to do with whether the character is subject to adequately non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but from your personal opposition to community standards and norms about how to differentiate reliable sources among the various gaming sites and video game journalists known to us. Haleth (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters#Nightwolf. Reviewing the above sources, the character is covered as an ensemble cast member, among the series roster and with no significance external to the series, and thus should be covered in that context. No one is making the argument that the prolific gaming press's coverage of standard DLC itself confers independent notability or that a series character's appearance in related series media warrants a dedicated article to house that coverage. This is another instance of knowing "when to split": there isn't a preponderance of coverage that sets this character apart from every other MK character and it should all be covered evenly in its existing article before warranting a split for undue weight. I'll note too on the ethnic stereotyping, this source listed above is a thesis and unsuitable for citation altogether, nevertheless for purposes of notability. The ICT citation is a brief mention that can be fully covered within the parent character list's relevant section. Merger is the appropriate compromise for any character with this average level of coverage and an existing series character article. czar 19:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep I think with the IGN and The Gamer sources, we're at GNG. If he never came back again and was only around in the 90s game, I'd argue he wasn't notable enough for an article. The fact that he's back and still getting commented on, 20 + yrs after the first appearance of the character (and a not insignificant discussion either) is enough to prove sustained coverage, hence notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Eurogamer article also discusses the character and ties it in the the franchise cartoon; the article has a by-line and seems a RS. I think we have enough for the article to be kept here. He was also the subject of an empathy study in a psychology journal , where they used Nightwolf and another character to define empathy. He was also described in this thesis . The psychology paper is the better of the two, but it discusses the character. Oaktree b (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Masters theses are not reliable sources. They have no systems for editorial control and are essentially unchecked manuscripts, same as any pre-publication.
  • TheGamer.com similarly has no hallmarks of a reliable source—I don't know what that VG/RS thread was thinking but @Sergecross73's comment about clickbait and "articles about nothing" rings true a year later. Even if you want to send that source back to discussion, it should absolutely be used as a low quality source for our purposes in this discussion.
  • The fact that Nightwolf is namedchecked as part of the method in a psych study is trivia, not grounds for independent notability. There isn't any coverage of the character's importance independent from the series.

  czar 02:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, while there was a slim majority of people who were in favor of TheGamer being usable, there's also a fair amount of editors who believe that notability really shouldn't hinge on their shoddy output. The subject is in rough shape if it needs TheGamer coverage to clear the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Eurogamer article also does not have any sort of commentary, it is pretty much just a news post on the fact that he appears as DLC, and a summonable ally references a cartoon. That is not SIGCOV in my book. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Coverage appears GNG-sufficient to me, perhaps a victim of escalating assessments of what coverage really needs to be to be "non-trivial". Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Jclemens: Per WP:NOTAVOTE I would ask for you to list which top 3 sources make the article pass GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keep meets out notability requirements. Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2022 (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.