Guybrush Threepwood : Reception is based on listicles and passing mentions; only one reference mentions him in the title ( [11] from Kotaku, and while the source is reliable, the coverage is very brief and relates to his inclusion as a guest character in another game).  This trivia about his name from a similar and seemingly non-notable outlet ( TheGamer on Wikidata , no Wikipedia articles about this werbsite) is not very helpful, either.  Scholarly sources (GScholar) are just passing mentions.  A minor academic article mentions him in the title ( [12] ) but fails to discuss him in any serious length.  Ditto for this student thesis (I can't tell if this is master or below, seems to be just a course project?), and then we get even weaker sources, none of which sadly seems to have even a shred of usuable analysis.  I'd be happy to be proven wrong (one of the early games in the series was one of my first video games, growing up...) but unless we can't find good sources, the best WP:ATD-R I can think of would be a redirect to the Monkey Island (series) that he is the main character of.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Video games .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This article , specifically p. 6 and 9, seems significant to me, especially as it comes to a different conclusion from the very short commentary in " Do computer games need to be 3D? " of Guybrush being "the player's surrogate", giving the opportunity to present both opinions.  But I am not sure what kind of article it is with regard to reliability.  Daranios ( talk ) 11:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] So it seems to me the "Self-reflexivity and humor in adventure games" was in Game Studies , a conventional scholarly journal, and can therefore be considered reliable.  Daranios ( talk ) 09:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Y'arr, this article may be taking on water and be loaded with sources more rotten than old fish, but it shouldn't be forced to walk the plank.  With my spyglass, I spotted significant coverage from Good Game , a reliable source!  Furthermore, there is additional coverage in H'arrrrdcore Gaming 101 , with an entire paragraph describing his character.  The additional two page spread in Retro Game'arrr demonstrates that Guybrush is more notable than Shanty Pete's beard!  I suggest hoisting the mainsail and making for Rewrite Island.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 08:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm The last source seems fine, but the first reads like gibberish (even if it is reliable, I can't see how it can be useful) and is the second one reliable?  Not much there.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 13:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There's a consensus that HG101 is reliable, with the article having been written by Kurt Kalata himself.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 19:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The first reference is not gibberish - it very much appears to be a tribute to the GT character in the form of a parody of This Is Your Life .   Counts towards WP:GNG in my view, if the source is reliable.  Resonant Dis tor tion 19:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for the most amusing AFD ! vote I've seen in a while.  :D BOZ ( talk ) 17:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per...um...Zx?  That said some of the sourcing in the article is good too but very underutilized: it's focusing on the ranking than what's being said, and I feel that could definitely help turn around things if they're fleshed out while any weaker sources are removed.  Couple that with the findings above and it should be able to stand on its own. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 10:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep pinning me colours to the mast o' the sources plundered by cap'n ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ .  Resonant Dis tor tion 20:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The sources used in the reception section seem to be considered reliable for video games topics, so I see no reason to discount them just because many of them are in list format.  Together with the sources found by Zxcvbnm and me, there is enough non-plot (and plot) material to write a reasonable article in my view.  Daranios ( talk ) 09:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Reliable sources have been identified giving significant coverage, so the general notability guidelines are met.  D r e a m Focus 10:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there is convincing coverage that passes WP:SIGCOV here.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Withdraw .  Fine, fine, I don't want to walk the plank.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 01:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: per all forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:52, 30 November 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: keep