Inkling (Splatoon) : Most of the reception section content could be potentially be merged at the series article.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect and merge whats useful to Splatoon .  SIGCOV and commentary is lacking.  Outside of the Reception section, the content is all duplicative to the design of the games.  The appearances in other Nintendo games can easily be summarized in the franchise article.  -- ferret ( talk ) 21:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games .  Shellwood ( talk ) 21:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I am wondering if some of the stuff in this article would be suited for a Universe of Splatoon article?  (Oinkers42) ( talk ) 01:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, unless the main article is utterly bloated.  There's not THAT much reliably sourced in-depth universe content for Splatoon.  -- ferret ( talk ) 01:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No, that's why we have series articles, which already exists at Splatoon .  Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect To Splatoon .  Unfortunately, Inklings just aren't notable at all.  No prejudice on the creation of a List of Splatoon characters article.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  [2] and [3] , both of which authored by experts in taxonomy and related fields.  I would contend that, while the article could have a stronger foundation, these sources, as well as those "listicles" that discuss Inkling as both a significant female character of her era and as one of the best characters of the 2010s, is enough.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 07:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge/Redirect The article is a amalgamation of largely primary sources and trivia.  It seems when these type of concept/character articles come up the nuance in notability seems to be whether reliable secondary sources cast an independent and descriptive light on the development and reception on the subject, which they do not do here.  I'm always super appreciative for efforts to find more sourcing, but as in WP:SCHOLARSHIP , I am cautious about whether a small number of in-depth research articles on the subject should be used as a foundation for a contested article's notability.  Even when peer-reviewed, many of these articles are isolated primary research projects and not independent reviews of the subject matter.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 08:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I also share the concerns about the scholarly articles being isolated.  It's not really shown that they are widely cited or referred to, and aren't exactly public-facing.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 12:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not sure what the standard for "public facing" is; a Google Scholar search for "Inkling" "Splatoon" showed these immediately, and I'm uncertain what your standard for widely cited or referred to.  The fact that they have multiple citations and the authors are experts in relevant fields is adequate to justify their use.  You can argue perfectly well that these two sources aren't enough on their own, but I think that they do contribute to notability.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 15:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/redirect to main series article.  That's what the series article is for, to summarize what primary sources have to say about the topic, keeping it in WP:PROPORTION to more neutral reliable sources.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I note the article survived a merge proposal where additional sources [4] [5] [6] were identified that were not included in the article.  Does the AfM discussion have any bearing, and are the sources helpful at all?  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk ) 23:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The sources were WP:PRIMARY or not specifically about Inklings.  Looking at it again I really should have stuck to my "support" as I was absolutely correct there.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to series : No evidence of real coverage that can't be used Additional comment : Can we agree that using Smash Bros. for character notability shouldn't count unless the character is absolutely notorious in the scene like with Meta Knight and Steve (Minecraft) ?  This type of commentary was also used at Villager (which was redirected) and Pichu .  The Super Smash Bros. scene changes constantly, and except in instances where the character literally broke the game (see the examples I gave), I don't think we should use Smash for character reception.  Negative MP1 20:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speaking from having read a bunch of articles about characters in Smash, a lot of notability derived from Smash based sources tends to focus on their role in the series.  There is genuinely some commentary that can be derived from these sources at times, but it depends on how it's used in the article itself.  However, I feel a lot of the time, unless it's something like the examples you listed, where it is very impactful on the game's entire sphere, they work better as supportive sources than something to build a whole article around.  I wouldn't discredit it entirely, but I definitely agree that there should be some pickiness when it comes to sources.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per others.  I feel this has grounds to be a notable topic, but right now sources simply do not exist to individually establish the Inklings separately from Splatoon.  Unopposed to this being remade in the future should sources arise.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 22:08, 26 August 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