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.
Just like Sinon and Leafa, the article was still not improved and has no commentary exceot the anime news network source from the concept and creation section about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings. Those merchandise sources doesn't help either with notability and merely saying "that it just exist" (again).
GreenishPickle! (
🔔) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I actually refer mostly from reception only. Re-edited my rationale, but that along isn't enough.
GreenishPickle! (
🔔) 21:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I believe the
Critical commentary is neither trivial nor based on passing mentions. Together with the
Creation and conception section this constitutes a non-stubby article fulfilling
WP:WHYN, which is further rounded out by the other sections. So I see neither a policy-based reason for deletion nor how deletion of this article would benefit Wikipedia overall.
Daranios (
talk) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with you, and vote to keep this article as well.
Historyday01 (
talk) 13:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, per the findings above. Also, this is just a reminder that Anime News Network has links below some of their articles to
WP:RS in Japanese. They are only reporting the news in English as per
this example "via AmiAmi News". -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
See
WP:TRIVIAL. Significant coverage is more than just a trivial mention. What are the
WP:THREE best sources I'm supposed to look at to prove that she has significant discussion, and not in CBR, which is a
content farm that does not indicate notability?
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 17:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepCBR featured a listicle... with Asuna as the focus, not an entry. Plenty of RS commentary for arguably the second most important character in the franchise.
Jclemens (
talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge Websites like CBR and IGN never counts as a part of Asuna's character ability. All of them are just a bunch of people's point of views, But not as a character written by a production stuff. Other references are just a merchandise. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
103.143.241.121 (
talk) 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:RSP notes that There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. It has no articulated opinion in CBR, but we have repeatedly used it in pop culture topics like this one, so your perspective is essentially unsupported and deviates from working consensus.
Jclemens (
talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the extensive sourcing discussed by Historyday01, clearly
WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. Also the "listicles/rankings" can still be a contributor to notability,
WP:SIGCOV is unequivocal and clear that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The "Creation and conception" and "Critical commentary" sections have decent sources and demonstrate notability.
Toughpigs (
talk) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Plenty of coverage of this character, and a lot of valid information in the article. Wouldn't work to just merge it over to a list article.
DreamFocus 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm gonna burst a bubble here, This seems bias that Asuna is always a favorable character, People saying she's "canon" on every arcs. But she's not a core or main character on some arcs like Phantom Bullet.
103.143.241.125 (
talk) 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Why keeping Asuna? If Leafa and Sinon are just "Nobody's Characters" or minors being removed their entries
103.143.241.125 (
talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It all depends on whatever random group of people notice and show up to participate. I own the Sword Art Online Progressive novels, the writer stating the two main characters should be together at the start, she a main character there. In the anime as well she was in most episodes. Anyway, its about what coverage can be found and if that convinces people the article should be kept.
DreamFocus 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Current sourcing is competent enough to warrant notability and the references provided by Historyday01 surmount any doubt I have in spite that I admittedly don't care much for Sword Art Online. Doesn't help that the arguments for deletion are either broad or ignore the other sources established within the article. Yet another instance of
WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. SuperSkaterDude45 (
talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep SAO is one of the most popular anime ever created, there is MORE than enough coverage to deem this article notable. I agree with Historyday that this AFD was highly unnecessary and could have been avoid with a
WP:PEERREVIEW.
Swordman97talk to me 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I see a whole lot of
WP:ITSPOPULAR here. What are these examples of "more than enough coverage" in your opinion?
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm: Once again, there are entire articles devoted to the character that are used as existing references, most of which are at least reliable enough to demonstrate notability. There are also scholarly articles that can range from passing mentions to having entire paragraphs dedicating to the series and the characters roles within it. The fact that is consistently used as an example regarding trends and tropes within anime demonstrates at least some academic notability. Again, most of the arguments for deletion are really only vetted against the use of Valnet sources and either ignore or completely omit any mention of the other reliable sources already within the article and I have yet to see an actual and reasonable argument for a merger. SuperSkaterDude45 (
talk) 06:56, 6 February 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.
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.
Just like Sinon and Leafa, the article was still not improved and has no commentary exceot the anime news network source from the concept and creation section about the character but only passing mentions and listicles/rankings. Those merchandise sources doesn't help either with notability and merely saying "that it just exist" (again).
GreenishPickle! (
🔔) 12:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I actually refer mostly from reception only. Re-edited my rationale, but that along isn't enough.
GreenishPickle! (
🔔) 21:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep I believe the
Critical commentary is neither trivial nor based on passing mentions. Together with the
Creation and conception section this constitutes a non-stubby article fulfilling
WP:WHYN, which is further rounded out by the other sections. So I see neither a policy-based reason for deletion nor how deletion of this article would benefit Wikipedia overall.
Daranios (
talk) 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with you, and vote to keep this article as well.
Historyday01 (
talk) 13:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, per the findings above. Also, this is just a reminder that Anime News Network has links below some of their articles to
WP:RS in Japanese. They are only reporting the news in English as per
this example "via AmiAmi News". -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
See
WP:TRIVIAL. Significant coverage is more than just a trivial mention. What are the
WP:THREE best sources I'm supposed to look at to prove that she has significant discussion, and not in CBR, which is a
content farm that does not indicate notability?
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 17:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
KeepCBR featured a listicle... with Asuna as the focus, not an entry. Plenty of RS commentary for arguably the second most important character in the franchise.
Jclemens (
talk) 19:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Merge Websites like CBR and IGN never counts as a part of Asuna's character ability. All of them are just a bunch of people's point of views, But not as a character written by a production stuff. Other references are just a merchandise. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
103.143.241.121 (
talk) 21:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:RSP notes that There is consensus that IGN is generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, as well as for film and video game reviews given that attribution is provided. It has no articulated opinion in CBR, but we have repeatedly used it in pop culture topics like this one, so your perspective is essentially unsupported and deviates from working consensus.
Jclemens (
talk) 23:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the extensive sourcing discussed by Historyday01, clearly
WP:BEFORE wasn't followed. Also the "listicles/rankings" can still be a contributor to notability,
WP:SIGCOV is unequivocal and clear that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 02:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: The "Creation and conception" and "Critical commentary" sections have decent sources and demonstrate notability.
Toughpigs (
talk) 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Plenty of coverage of this character, and a lot of valid information in the article. Wouldn't work to just merge it over to a list article.
DreamFocus 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm gonna burst a bubble here, This seems bias that Asuna is always a favorable character, People saying she's "canon" on every arcs. But she's not a core or main character on some arcs like Phantom Bullet.
103.143.241.125 (
talk) 16:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Why keeping Asuna? If Leafa and Sinon are just "Nobody's Characters" or minors being removed their entries
103.143.241.125 (
talk) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It all depends on whatever random group of people notice and show up to participate. I own the Sword Art Online Progressive novels, the writer stating the two main characters should be together at the start, she a main character there. In the anime as well she was in most episodes. Anyway, its about what coverage can be found and if that convinces people the article should be kept.
DreamFocus 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep Current sourcing is competent enough to warrant notability and the references provided by Historyday01 surmount any doubt I have in spite that I admittedly don't care much for Sword Art Online. Doesn't help that the arguments for deletion are either broad or ignore the other sources established within the article. Yet another instance of
WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. SuperSkaterDude45 (
talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep SAO is one of the most popular anime ever created, there is MORE than enough coverage to deem this article notable. I agree with Historyday that this AFD was highly unnecessary and could have been avoid with a
WP:PEERREVIEW.
Swordman97talk to me 04:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I see a whole lot of
WP:ITSPOPULAR here. What are these examples of "more than enough coverage" in your opinion?
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 17:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Zxcvbnm: Once again, there are entire articles devoted to the character that are used as existing references, most of which are at least reliable enough to demonstrate notability. There are also scholarly articles that can range from passing mentions to having entire paragraphs dedicating to the series and the characters roles within it. The fact that is consistently used as an example regarding trends and tropes within anime demonstrates at least some academic notability. Again, most of the arguments for deletion are really only vetted against the use of Valnet sources and either ignore or completely omit any mention of the other reliable sources already within the article and I have yet to see an actual and reasonable argument for a merger. SuperSkaterDude45 (
talk) 06:56, 6 February 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.