Winston (Overwatch): No indication that their gameplay gave them notability outside of the game itself, nor proper discussion of the character to provide SIGCOV.  Attempting to find sources that were not about gameplay ended up fruitless as well.  Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions .  -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions .  -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 29 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I hate merging a monkey, but KFM spitting.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 03:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Gorillas are not monkeys they are apes xp GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk ) 09:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We all return tho - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 05:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Just started searching for sources a week ago (with credit to GlatorNator for finding a good amount as well), and it wasn't fruitless as the article now uses almost double the amount as prior to last week.  I stated in talk page I'll continue to look for sources, as GlatorNator and ferret raised concerns about the ones not quite clearing GNG criteria.  But I've also have had to address GlatorNator finding sources for Mercy and D.Va articles, as well as helping out on the Sombra article.  And now am in the middle of addressing AfD for Pharah, notability tagging on Kiriko, and GlatorNator's found sources for Brigitte.  If you go through the edit histories of those articles, I'm the main editor on most of them (main exception being Sombra), and doing all of this in such a short window of time is rather just a touch overloading imo.  Not to mention other there are other Overwatch-related articles, Hanzo and Doomfist, that while I haven't really contributed to I have been notified about the taggings of their respective issue, so I wonder why aren't we allowing for more time to be taken on these improvements, as opposed to just rushing through these processes?  ( Initial notability tagging on Winston is only from earlier this month, for instance.  If I can get around to it, I will try my best to find sourcing for this article, but I've already mentioned my priority being the AfD on Pharah, then addressing the Kiriko article, and then the Brigitte one.  For now, I found this [source https://killscreen.com/previously/articles/winston-science-gorilla-charge/ ] which isn't centered on the character's gameplay.  I guess I'll formally express my take to Keep this, for now, but yeah.  Soulbust ( talk ) 04:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Ferret sources analysis [42] .  GlatorNator ( ᴛ ) 05:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per others.  When this article was made, it was done in a way that ignored whether or not the character was notable.  Wikipedia is not a fan wiki.  While others tried to improve the article, they should have simply questioned why it existed.  Editors should be strongly cautioned that mere mentions in titles of articles does not equal significant coverage within the article.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 13:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge Per my prior source analysis and Kung Fu Man.  It's even worst that a source like this Killscreen article is being touted as sigcov here at this AFD.  For one, Killscreen says up front that they were indiscriminate and wrote such an article for *every* character of Overwatch .  In short, this is non-independent coverage of the game, they did it for every single character.  Let's pretend it was independent though.  This is possibly the most terrible source anyone could offer to me when trying to prove notability.  It offers a brief description of how the character looks cloaked in meme-speak jokes.  There's no discussion of the character's development, back story, strengths or weaknesses in gameplay, change history, player reception, nothing.  -- ferret ( talk ) 16:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge It's laughable to consider Killscreen a reliable source as the article is not even written from a neutral point of view. sixty nine • whaddya want? • 17:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge The appearances section is bloated, and there's only a bit of dev stuff that can have this in the main list article. -- M asem ( t ) 18:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The Kill Screen source doesn't need to be neutral, since it's opinionated and can simply be included in the prose in a way that clarifies that .  But it's not laughable to consider something a reliable source when it's listed as such ...  I don't get the language we're using here.  "Being touted", I didn't even call it sigcov in my previous comment, just mentioned that I found the source.  Looking at it closer, I don't see how it wouldn't count as significant coverage when the WP:GNG pretty clearly defines its criteria.  The Kill Screen source meets it by directly and in detail discussing the subject (Winston).  If you or others disagree with it being SIGCOV that's fine, but what does it matter that Kill Screen wrote one on every character?  This has no relevance or weight when it comes to any criteria that'd apply here.  Is it really an outlandish concept that a media outlet writes about characters in media?  How is it non-independent?  Kill Screen isn't affiliated with Blizzard.  Unless we are going to consider any video game media outlet "non-independent" for covering video games?  (which yes, obviously, they'd have at least some interest in doing so).  "When this article was made, it was done in a way that ignored whether..."  No, I didn't ignore anything.  I simply disagree with your opinion, and that's fine.  It was seven years ago when the threshold (not the officially defined one in guidelines and policies, but more so how the community feels and holds accountable the articles in the WP:VG space) was obviously different (not to mention, I'd be seven years younger and admittedly more eager to make articles on VG topics back then).  I don't look at just the titles...  I'm the one sifting through sources to even cite, when writing this article.  I know this isn't the Overwatch fandom wiki, and so I don't try to include any and every piece of trivia.  Just core gameplay concepts, development history, reception, and media appearance (comics, animations, etc.) that are from reliable sources.  Nothing crazy or out of the usual for something on Wikipedia.  I think the character has a place in a stand-alone article, but others firmly disagree.  Cool with me .  My sensibilities lean more to include information about Winston here on the stand-alone article.  Not officially policy or guideline, but I know some editors like and lean toward the WP:THREE suggestion.  Maybe there isn't three sources that everyone else is satisfied with counting as sigcov.  (But I would lean toward a suggestion (that I don't think has had a WP essay written up about, like how WP:THREE exists): There's at least one though and a whole lot of supplemental sourcing showing Winston with a tangible (as possible for a fictional character) presence.  I'm of the mindset that in concert with each other , the linked source with legitimate and more than plenty supplemental sourcing works to create an article that is obviously more than just skin and bones.  But I'm not stupid or oblivious.  I felt that much more with the Bastion one than this Winston one, and the former was merged/redirected.  Lots of merge votes here already so I definitely expect this to be redirected, so I don't have anything else to add to this discussion or the article.  Don't mind if we wrap this one as a redirect and merge early, or if it goes the standard week.  Soulbust ( talk ) 19:14, 29 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge