Mipha : Unlike Prince Sidon who received its popularity for being "sexually attractive" (I guess), meanwhile Mipha didn't.  Reception mostly contians only rankings and trivia articles.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 12:41, 17 July 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 ) 13:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Collectively the sourced content seems to fullfill the requirements of WP:GNG / WP:WHYN .  Being a "fascinating, complex character" and "a beloved character" don't seem trivial mentions to me.  Daranios ( talk ) 14:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Literally came from a situational listicle source "Breath Of The Wild: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Mipha" that isn't directly talking about the character or being the main topic of the article (= not SIGCOV), but okay I guess.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 15:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Greenish Pickle!  : Whatever other considerations there maybe about a source, WP:SIGCOV specifically says to be significant coverage the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."  But in this specific case, Mipha IS the main topic, as the title says.  Daranios ( talk ) 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source you are talking about was published by Screen Rant , which cannot be used to demonstrate notability per WP:VG/RS TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Indeed, and so it seems are Game Rant and The Gamer .  Sad that these sources are biased that way, thanks @ TarkusAB : for pointing that out.  In that case amending my ! vote to merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Mipha until someone can find more sources.  Daranios ( talk ) 19:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's not so much being biased (they're perfectly fine solely as sources of info/commentary) as they don't really have a bar in terms of inclusion.  Their aim is solely to generate content on niche topics, which is somewhat of the reverse of what the notability policy is intended to do, so they often wreak havoc with people assuming it's evidence something should have an article.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 20:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Thanks for pointing that out, indeed I meant biased with regard to area of coverage (notability question) not with regard to content of their articles (reliability question).  Though I find Haleth 's comments on that interesting that the situation is not quite so clear-cut.  However, I have no energy to get into this.  Daranios ( talk ) 10:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I don't see any of the solid critical analysis that are in well-sourced character articles.  There's a good amount of links to Screen Rant and Game Rant , which do not demonstrate notability.  It would not make much sense to keep only this character when we already have concensus to merge Daruk and Revali.  The sourcing is pretty similar.  TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Mipha .  Can't find much about her outside of content farm-y sources.  Seems like a prime candidate for a character list entry, but not a standalone article.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 18:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Zxcvbnm : Question: how should we do a character list for Breath of the Wild?  I feel like Tears of the Kingdom would be included, but would it be something like, "Characters in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom"?  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Basically yes.  There's not much of a shorter way to put it since, technically, it's still set in Hyrule.  Personally, I advocate for the "List of characters..." naming scheme since it's, well, a list.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just don't love it since it leads to list-class assessment, which, IMO, is reserved for content that can't really be judged as Stub/Start/C/B/GA/A/FA.  Anyway, do you have any interest in helping with one?  - Cukie Gherkin ( talk ) 21:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I might pop in to fix things, but I wouldn't expect a massive amount of heavy lifting.  I'm not a particularly large BOTW fan.  It's fine in the general list of characters for now, I simply suggest that if someone's interested, a more specific list can be split off.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  Could someone link me to the actual discussion where a group of editors have formed a solid consensus that Game Rant, Screen Rant and TheGamer cannot be used to demonstrate notability?  As I recall, the last time I accessed that page just under a year ago, there was no such formalized determination anywhere on the project.  I checked the page history and no one has left an edit summary which explained that this sites are now marked as unusable to demonstrate notability, none of the linked discussions for each of the sites on the reliable sources page contain references to this.  So it looks like these have been unilaterally added by an editor who may or may not have a bias against Valnet properties (justified or otherwise), and no one has done their due diligence or fact check whether there is consensus about it thus far.  Haleth ( talk ) 21:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Haleth : The most recent discussion was 1 year ago here which you yourself participated in, but there was a widespread consensus that GameRant was situational, leaning unreliable.  Since ScreenRant and TheGamer are run by the same people in the same manner, the consensus would naturally extend to those as well.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 21:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That was 2 years ago actually.  Again, there is no consensus in that discussion which says any of the sources cannot be used to prove notability period, only "use with caution".  And it wasn't just me who pointed out that ScreenRant and TheGamer seemed to look better when compared to GameRant.  We should assess the sources on a case by case basis, not make sweeping assumptions about their reliability just because they are owned by a certain parent company.  We don't blatantly call out Fox News as unreliable under all contexts, just because the UK branch of the Murdoch news empire is deemed to be so by other editors.  Haleth ( talk ) 01:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I felt like some of the  Valnet sources should help notability, thou it shouldn't be irrelevant articles like "Breath Of The Wild: 10 Things You Didn't Know About Mipha" or the rankings.  Greenish Pickle!  ( 🔔 ) 22:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] There was broad agreement that no Valnet sources should count towards notability.  If the idea of a situational source didn't exist, it would have likely have just been called unreliable.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 22:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, please link to the specific discussion/consensus that formalizes the notion that Valnet sources should not count towards notability.  Haleth ( talk ) 01:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, there's this .  But the discussion is more on sourcing in general, and I don't see a consensus there.  Even in that discussion, there's a split whether to ban Valnet completely, or to keep it usable, but not for notability.  I would actually have to be in agreement with GreenishPickle.  I think something like this should contribute to notability.  Something like this , however, not so much.  MoonJet ( talk ) 06:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:VG/S explicitly states that Valnet sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability.  JOE BRO 64 11:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  I had initial thoughts that this one could be fine, but comparing it to Urbosa , I don't think there is much here to improve.  Merge into the Characters of The Legend of Zelda .  Though on that subject, I still reiterate that I think Urbosa is notable enough and shouldn't be nominated for deletion.  NegativeMP1 ( talk ) 05:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Characters of The Legend of Zelda .  Pretty cut and dry case here.  Not much else to say.  JOE BRO 64 11:18, 24 July 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