Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonya Blade

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.

The result was keep‎ but this article seriously needs much cleanup if it is to remain in the long run. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Blade

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did try cleaning up all of those sources that have no commentary, unreliable, and that talks only about listicles/rankings/hotties ranks, but there's more. After all of that, I felt like Sonya now has zero WP:Sigcov. The only valuable sources were the 2 pdf/journal at the end that only talks about her custome at MK9. That's it. Per WP:BEFORE, most of the sources appears to be only like this [1] [2] [3] [4][5] that provides almost nothing about the character and are usually not a Sigcov. The rest sources were just her announcement to the game and all of these just usually say "WoW Sonya Is Back In New Trailer, so coOl". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Her current reception is untenable. This was the only viable SIGCOV I could find, which falls short of GNG standards. Her article has definitely been WP:REFBOMBed to give the appearance of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also found this source: [6] - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just from a quick search, I've been able to find [7], [8], and [9]. While three is not a large amount of sigcov, the fact that they were easily found suggests to me that this is probably not the extent of what is available. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet, but [10] [11] both discuss the character in the film to a significant extent. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the sources Cukie Gherkin has provided in here, plus the aforementioned sources I've added to the article at the beginning of this month after you previously tagged the article for notability. WP:GNG, WP:THREE and WP:NVGC are more than satisfied here. Besides, I don't get why you're doubting the notability of Sonya Blade, of all characters, arguably the Chun-Li of Mortal Kombat. MoonJet (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added the Mary Sue and Vice sources to the article. MoonJet (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the Vice source, it seems it's about Ronda Rousey, not Sonya Blade the character. In other words, it is critical of Rousey's performance as a voice actor and the game developers' casting decisions, with only a few comments on Blade's significance that don't add up to SIGCOV overall. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reminder, WP:GNG specifically states that an article need not be about the subject in order to be usable to show notability. The fact that it was Sonya in particular was one part of why she is so against Rousey portraying her, and she goes on to explain why. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a common misconception that sources need to be solely or primarily about about the subject to show notability, despite GNG stating otherwise. Besides, the Vice source really is about both Ronda Rousey and Sonya. I know WP:THREE is pushed sometimes. Well, the three best sources, IMO, are The Mary Sue, GamesRadar and the PDF document The female characters in the game Mortal Kombat: An aesthetic analysis from the stereotyped image of a woman. So, even if you feel Vice doesn't contribute to significant coverage, there's still those other sources. MoonJet (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criticism of WP:REFBOMBing is valid here. I want to give this the benefit of the doubt that this might still have WP:SIGCOV. But it's hard to assess given the amount of tangential information added to this article to pad it. A clean-up would be a good start, and I think there's a consensus for that. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to weigh in on the sources linked here? Honestly, a lot of fighting game character articles are refbombed, which is going to be a process of cleaning up across the board. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs clean-up too, especially the "appearances" section, which definitely is in need of some trimming. This seems to be a left over from the older Wikipedia days, where certain users (myself included, I have to admit) over-cited character articles. That said, I'm in favor of keeping the article per my above arguments, but tagging it for clean-up. MoonJet (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I put more of the blame on Niemti and his tendency to overblow everything he can than you. It's also why I've been hesitant to AfD Mortal Kombat subjects because until the junk it cleaved out it's hard to know just how much of it is actually useful and give a fair image if a AfD is necessary or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up at least temporarily, so the article can be improved. I'm basing this on the significant coverage in "Sonya Blade finally feels like a real character in Mortal Kombat X". This provides the kind of in-depth analysis needed for a separate article, even if we would still need more sources like this. Some of the other sources are more borderline, but I'm convinced there are multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, lost between the padding. AFD isn't clean-up, but hopefully editors can keep improving the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 27 March 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.