The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
Aside from inspiring some Internet memes and being featured in Yandere Simulator, Monika lacks real world notability. Most of the "Development history" section just mentions the game's score, which would be more appropriate on the article about the game rather than a character from it. In addition, only one source mentions her being a meme, which isn't enough sources to warrant a Wikipedia article. How exactly is Monika notable outside of being featured as the main antagonist in one visual novel?
ThisIsSparta2007 (
talk)
10:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Doki Doki Literature Club!. I'm a huge fan of DDLC, but as you have previously stated, this article has too much cruft and trivial mentions. The other three characters work fine as redirects to the game's page, and so does Monika. The game article covers enough information, with better sources, about Monika, and without the cruft this article has too. A redirect seems like the most logical option here.
HaruhiSuzumiyaIsAGod (
talk)
16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Doki Doki Literature Club!. I remember I tried to source this one months ago and I'm shocked there aren't more people talking about the writing in this game. But really most of the articles talk about the writing and character design more generally. I'm sure there is something to
WP:PRESERVE.
Archrogue (
talk)
01:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Even if one would argue that
[1] and
[2] are significant coverage - plausible - the issue is whether they are reliable, and here I am afraid the answer is 'barely if at all'. There are few passing mentions in more reliable, scholarly sources like
[3].Then there is a lengthy discussion at
[4] which often mentions her but generally seems to be limited to a plot summary. I see enough mentions of the character in Google Scholar to think that there may be something more substantial out there, or that the combination of 10+ mentions in academic sources, plus the popcultural reception (memes etc.) in lower quality non-academic sources may be enough to give this one a pass. PS. My keep vote is nonetheless weak as I haven't found in-depth, reliable discussion of the character. If you think you did please ping me so I can review it and reconsider my vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep on a procedural basis, per other users about the nominator's bad faith nomination. The nominator appears to be unfamiliar with the
WP:GNG guideline and did not make the appropriate deletion argument for this AfD, instead relying on
the argument that if Freddy Fazbear isn't notable, then so isn't Monika, or a nebulous and vague concept of "real world notability" when it is not proscribed or defined anywhere in the
WP:N guideline. There is clearly significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, the popularity (or lack of or waning etc) of the game itself does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the character is notable or otherwise.
Haleth (
talk)
10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep in light of the fact that the nominator is blocked due to a Checkuser confirmation provided by
Mz7 that they have engaged in sockpuppetry, and one of their sockpuppets' votes in this AfD have been struck off.
Haleth (
talk)
07:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Haleth: In my view, this doesn't fall under any of the criteria for speedy keep at
WP:SK: the nominator was technically not blocked under any account at the time that they submitted the nomination, and even if they were, because other editors have added substantive comments before the sockpuppetry was discovered, the discussion should be allowed to proceed (with the sock comments disregarded).
Mz7 (
talk)
08:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I was thinking more along the lines of the nomination being unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption by the nominator, and sockpuppetry is an exemplary tactic of disruptive editing. But I understand your point.
Haleth (
talk)
08:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Doki Doki Literature Club, the sources dug up are a bunch of passing mentions, unreliable sources, and sources that only mention the character in an in-universe context, none of which contribute to notability. I am not seeing the coverage necessary to pass
WP:GNG.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
04:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. According to
WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I believe most content here is scrapped together from other reviews, only really being mentioned by most. How the entire reception section describes her, these are simply reviews about the game, but they could possibly dedicate their own section explaining her and why they like her. However, this is not the case; the Kotaku source says "Monika’s writing is disarming and sinister" and that's it. Not only that, it talks about her in context of the other three, too.
The entire first paragraph in development is about all four characters as a whole, allowing for easy porting to the main article.
And yes, I know this user is a sockpuppet and this was made out of bad faith, but the general reasoning behind the existence of some articles is invalid.
Panini🥪10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to Doki Doki. Strip out the gameplay and plot elements, and you're left with practically nothing that can't be added to DDLC. --
Masem (
t)
00:33, 26 January 2021 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
Aside from inspiring some Internet memes and being featured in Yandere Simulator, Monika lacks real world notability. Most of the "Development history" section just mentions the game's score, which would be more appropriate on the article about the game rather than a character from it. In addition, only one source mentions her being a meme, which isn't enough sources to warrant a Wikipedia article. How exactly is Monika notable outside of being featured as the main antagonist in one visual novel?
ThisIsSparta2007 (
talk)
10:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Doki Doki Literature Club!. I'm a huge fan of DDLC, but as you have previously stated, this article has too much cruft and trivial mentions. The other three characters work fine as redirects to the game's page, and so does Monika. The game article covers enough information, with better sources, about Monika, and without the cruft this article has too. A redirect seems like the most logical option here.
HaruhiSuzumiyaIsAGod (
talk)
16:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Doki Doki Literature Club!. I remember I tried to source this one months ago and I'm shocked there aren't more people talking about the writing in this game. But really most of the articles talk about the writing and character design more generally. I'm sure there is something to
WP:PRESERVE.
Archrogue (
talk)
01:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. Even if one would argue that
[1] and
[2] are significant coverage - plausible - the issue is whether they are reliable, and here I am afraid the answer is 'barely if at all'. There are few passing mentions in more reliable, scholarly sources like
[3].Then there is a lengthy discussion at
[4] which often mentions her but generally seems to be limited to a plot summary. I see enough mentions of the character in Google Scholar to think that there may be something more substantial out there, or that the combination of 10+ mentions in academic sources, plus the popcultural reception (memes etc.) in lower quality non-academic sources may be enough to give this one a pass. PS. My keep vote is nonetheless weak as I haven't found in-depth, reliable discussion of the character. If you think you did please ping me so I can review it and reconsider my vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep on a procedural basis, per other users about the nominator's bad faith nomination. The nominator appears to be unfamiliar with the
WP:GNG guideline and did not make the appropriate deletion argument for this AfD, instead relying on
the argument that if Freddy Fazbear isn't notable, then so isn't Monika, or a nebulous and vague concept of "real world notability" when it is not proscribed or defined anywhere in the
WP:N guideline. There is clearly significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, the popularity (or lack of or waning etc) of the game itself does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the character is notable or otherwise.
Haleth (
talk)
10:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep in light of the fact that the nominator is blocked due to a Checkuser confirmation provided by
Mz7 that they have engaged in sockpuppetry, and one of their sockpuppets' votes in this AfD have been struck off.
Haleth (
talk)
07:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Haleth: In my view, this doesn't fall under any of the criteria for speedy keep at
WP:SK: the nominator was technically not blocked under any account at the time that they submitted the nomination, and even if they were, because other editors have added substantive comments before the sockpuppetry was discovered, the discussion should be allowed to proceed (with the sock comments disregarded).
Mz7 (
talk)
08:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I was thinking more along the lines of the nomination being unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption by the nominator, and sockpuppetry is an exemplary tactic of disruptive editing. But I understand your point.
Haleth (
talk)
08:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Doki Doki Literature Club, the sources dug up are a bunch of passing mentions, unreliable sources, and sources that only mention the character in an in-universe context, none of which contribute to notability. I am not seeing the coverage necessary to pass
WP:GNG.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
04:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Doki Doki Literature Club!. According to
WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I believe most content here is scrapped together from other reviews, only really being mentioned by most. How the entire reception section describes her, these are simply reviews about the game, but they could possibly dedicate their own section explaining her and why they like her. However, this is not the case; the Kotaku source says "Monika’s writing is disarming and sinister" and that's it. Not only that, it talks about her in context of the other three, too.
The entire first paragraph in development is about all four characters as a whole, allowing for easy porting to the main article.
And yes, I know this user is a sockpuppet and this was made out of bad faith, but the general reasoning behind the existence of some articles is invalid.
Panini🥪10:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to Doki Doki. Strip out the gameplay and plot elements, and you're left with practically nothing that can't be added to DDLC. --
Masem (
t)
00:33, 26 January 2021 (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.