Deletion of Dee Jay

Comment: for failing . Zxcvbnm sums up my issues with the sources — they all lack significant, in-depth coverage of the character and are largely just passing mentions in articles for other characters or games. I can see him being a plausible search term, but the poor sourcing proves he isn't notable on his own. I have no idea what this "Procedural keep" nonsense is about, not only does it not even apply to this AfD but it doesn't even make any sense (yet the majority of this discussion is about that
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per . This AfD is one of the situations reminding me why all of the notability guidelines are just guidelines, and not a single one of them, including , is a policy. IMO, ultimately, the depth and significance of coverage available are best judged by seeing if it is possible to build a proper full length detailed encyclopedic article based on the sources in question. That's manifestly the case here. Unlike so many other articles related to VG, this one is not fancraft and is not filled with OR. The 'Reception' section contains precisely the kind of informative critical analysis of the character that one would want to see
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means (WP:COMMONSENSE||WP:GNG)

Comment: the character is notable as one of the only three black characters in the early 1990s, two of which were from Street Fighter, and all three of which were from fighting games. I don't think that a merge is appropriate because it would lose the context of how the character was conceived by the developers which provides important context. That context is that one of the few black characters from that era was designed to explicitly address the lack of black characters in that specific series, with a seeming obliviousness of a lack of black characters in the rest of the game industry. Deleting this information does a tremendous disservice to our encyclopedia as a way to learn about how character designs have evolved, for better and for worse. I say that with some awareness that several references are short mentions but I believe that the notability is established by how many references there are, and that they do |verify Dee Jay as a historically important character. (Note: an editor tried to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dee%20Jay&diff=998105247 remove the verified information that I added while ironically accusing me of removing content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NRVE)

Comment: So after I was chastised for voting procedural keep on the basis of the rationale ignoring  and , people were able to find significant coverage? Jeesh, it's almost as though citing policy is constructive or something
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:ARTN)

Comment: and '''Template the article''' - Per {{u|Haleth}}. Every policy and guideline (including , , , and ) directly says not to nominate articles solely based on the quality of sourcing and writing. Wikipedia is not a final draft and the existing References section has no barring on notability. Additionally, |AfD isn't a general clean-up page and no criteria for deletion is cited, so these -esque concerns should have been raised somewhere else
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ARTN||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:NEXIST||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:RUBBISH)

Comment: I see a full length character article with lots of coverage. I know the goalposts on notability and |significant coverage are always open to discussion, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that ''lots'' of independent sources doesn't always establish notability. But on top of at nearly twenty-odd sources, there are some that cover this character for a http://www.gamespy.com/articles/954/954328p2.html full page or section. And the reception section has an entire paragraph about his historic importance, and historicity within the industry is the highest bar of notability that a character can achieve. Merging would be like killing the baby and preserving the bathwater: the best parts of this article are the paragraphs about his development, reception, and legacy, none of which would fit in the bloated list of more than 90 characters
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: or '''Merge''' - Plausible search term, but not independently notable from the games. The reception section is rather awful despite its length. Not only are the sources passing mentions, but they’re not even good passing mentions. There’s nothing of substance at all, half of it isn’t even really reception as much as it’s just mundane comments vaguely about him. It’s a  situation for sure
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:BOMBARD)

Comment: While I am not opposed to this article being redirected/merged to an entry on the main list article, and I have not yet looked into whether there is further significant coverage outside of the cited sources, per  I am not sure why the nominator has sent this article to an AfD, as opposed to starting a merge discussion on the article's talk page or the talk page of the main list article. The nominator did not expressly say that the subject topic is not eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia due to lack of notability, only that it is probably more suitable for a character list, so the intent is not to in fact nominate it for actual deletion? I am using my experience of recent participation in other merge discussions about video game related topics as a reference point. Another thing I feel I should point out, is that the opinions of professional players who have won several notable tournaments and who warrant their own pages as notable public figures on Wikipedia probably do have some weight to them, as subject-matter experts. In this instance, their quoted opinions are attributed by reliable sources (IGN) and are not self published (which still does not diminish their verifiability but does invite more scrutiny). Lastly, the only unreliable source I can detect is the Bitmob Community Writer one. Which news article do you consider to be unreliable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)