Leafa : WP:BEFORE shows nothing at Google, but listicles/rankings.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 01:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions .  Shellwood ( talk ) 02:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the Fictional elements and Video games .  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 02:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep BEFORE News search should have found CBR , and GameRant , which may both be derided as "listicles" but show continuing coverage: most of the links in the article are from 2015; these are both from 2023.  CBR again with a critique of her--and only her--costumes from 2020.  More listicles abound .  As tacky as the bikini-clad figurines are, they are real-world products based off of one of the shallowest and most annoying characters in one Anime.  Jclemens ( talk ) 03:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] A good BEFORE search would have ignored such low-level sourcing as poor indicators of notability on their own, so no issues here.  Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely not.  Despite opinions to the contrary, these sources cover this sort of topic, so discussing how and to what extent they do is absolutely part of BEFORE.  "I found nothing ... but listicles/rankings" is not a credible summary, as listicles are entirely capable of counting towards GNG unless source snobbery is now a part of N. Jclemens ( talk ) 07:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Absolutely not.  They're listicles from some of the worst churnalism websites.  If you like talking about them, go for it, but there's no room for faulting the nominator on doing a BEFORE search and not reporting back about them.  Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Name calling, even against websites, isn't an argument.  The reason for a BEFORE to articulate the best sources found, even if they suck, is that gives everyone else a starting point.  A well done BEFORE demonstrates coverage or lack thereof, rather than asserts it.  Jclemens ( talk ) 06:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Okay?  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 12:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not just "name calling against websites" (???).  There's a Wikiproject-level consensus that these sorts of websites don't contribute to notability.  Instead of continually trying to lecture me, try getting yourself up to speed.  Sergecross73 msg me 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would concur; one of those sources even has no demonstration of notability, it's merely a recounting of facts about the character, which could only reasonably be used to cite information.  Listicles aren't an inherent problem, the problem is using listicles that may as well say nothing as far as notability is concerned.  - - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge It reads like written from a fan perspective, talking about the most minor stuff.  I am not convinced by numerous CBR listicles that this is an independently notable character.  My main question is how in the world it even stuck around so long.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 04:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm only counting multiple CBR listicles as one source for GNG purposes, and the costumes one is probably the most in-depth treatment.  The others from CBR just show continuing coverage.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Zx, somewhat.  I'll add I'm not against Valnet lists being used, but if they're discussing the work and not just reiterating how they play or their role.  Give us something examining the character and giving thoughts on them.  That doesn't seem to be present here. -- Kung Fu Man ( talk ) 06:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ - Not only are most of the sources just listicles, but they are largely ones that just list the entire main cast of the series, which does not really do much to indicate notability for Leafa in specific.  I am also not really convinced by the sources in the article regarding the merchandise featuring her.  Not only do they not really discuss the character at all, most of them are not even really reviews on the actual figures themselves, and merely saying "this is a thing that exists".  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  I'm not opposed to Valnet sources, but the ones provided seem to provide limited to no show of notability.  One is merely verifying information about the character; another , despite being a ranking, provides zero commentary.  This may seem like commentary at first blush, but it's really just describing her personality, offering the mild opinion that she would not be interested.  The Sports Skeeda source is listed as unreliable per the Video Game WikiProject reliable sources page , leaving the only one that seems to provide any commentary being the costumes list, which provides only very meager commentary on each outfit.  The first is a single sentence, the second is, once again, a single sentence, and barely says anything - "it's just a bikini".  There are some okay commentaries here and there, but the tally seems to be that there's a single source whose commentary could be summed up in a couple sentences, maybe even less considering the significant commentary seems to be about her more sexual outfits cheapening scenes.  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 00:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Kotaku covers a SAO product containing this fictional character, but without naming her by either fictional name or fictional gamer handle.  This is a pretty opaque journal article that mentions her, as a language tool was trained on SAO dialogue.  I was really expecting there to be more RS commentary on her relationship with Kirito (cousin/raised together as siblings/has a crush on him) and the associated ick factor, but most of what I'm willing to go find is just things like Reddit discussing it.  Jclemens ( talk ) 08:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per arguments above.  Coverage is extremely weak - passing mentions and listicles from low level churnalism websites.  The Kotaku source is perhaps even less than a passing mention, as it doesn't even mention the subject by name.  Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per all.  Coverage doesn't reach WP:SIGCOV when you remove unsourced or questionable sources.  The others barely mention the subject, but there is a possible WP:ATD here.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 16:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I accept that consensus favors merge.  For the closer's convenience, List of Sword Art Online characters#Leafa is the appropriate target.  Comment Have any of you tried looking up "桐ヶ谷 直葉"?  Sources are still sources if covered in notable foreign entities.  - Knowledgekid87 ( talk ) 14:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Foreign language sources can certainly be used to prove notability, but editors are not under a requirement to search in every language if it's not immediately notable in English.  If you have found major sources in Japanese, feel free to bring them to people's attention, though.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 17:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a ja wiki article on this character.  Someone better than me with translation might want to look at it and see what sources it includes.  Jclemens ( talk ) 08:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there?   When I looked, I only found her listed in their version of the "Characters from Sword Art Online" article, and could not find a separate article on the Japanese Wikipedia for her.  And her character section on the main Character List over there did not look like it had any usable reliable sources, with the citations largely just being the Sword Art Online books themselves, and a couple of social media posts.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 16:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There is a ja interwiki link.  If that's all it leads to, then I'm wondering why it was even there in the first place.  Jclemens ( talk ) 07:59, 19 January 2024 (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