Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shao Kahn

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. Consensus from discussion participants that the article's sourcing, whilst filled with references of variable value and reliability, contained enough significant coverage in several sources contained to meet general notability, with a suggestion that cleanup editing may be able to better resolve some of the content issues with the article. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Kahn[edit]

[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)

Almost everything at the reception section now are worthless. This source look like a sigcov [1], but if you actually see it only talks about its story not as a character. Meanwhile, this source is quite useful [2], I dont think its sigcov. Lets say indeed it is, then ot would be the only good source out there, while this one has a little bit content but looks kinda trivia [3]. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Den of Geek is obviously SIGCOV any way you slice it. TheGamer also has an entire listicle devoted to him, and while generally speaking listicles should be avoided, the entire thing is about him so it clearly counts as SIGCOV. That and Game Informer's "Gaming's Crappiest Fathers" piece is about enough for me to say that it does in fact weakly pass GNG, and that's when you ignore the dozens of mentions in Valnet sites like CBR and GameRant. I do think the sourcing is relatively weak, so I wouldn't oppose a merge, but there's enough here for a viable standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly, it's kind of hard to tell some MK characters if they are notable or not with all of this refbomb and such. This feels like a Whac-A-Mole game. Kung Lao would be my last concern, though this is still a 50/50 for its notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, if you're unsure, then you shouldn't be rushing to bring articles to AfD. Please raise issues on the articles' talk pages, maybe bring attention to the issue on WT:VG to see if anyone is willing to help sort things out. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Kung Lao was previously in AFD, and sources to show notability were posted in there, and on the article's talk page. Kung Fu Man, Cukie and I all agree that most of the MK character articles need a lot of clean-up, as much of their current state are leftovers from the Niemti days. MoonJet (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But like Sonya Blade, tag it for clean-up. That said, I'm in favor for keeping this for TheGamer, Game Informer and Den of Geek sources, and this may also show some significant coverage. Then we also have some sources discussing Shao Kahn as a boss, the best of which probably being this one, as it does provide some meaningful commentary. And the Game Revolution sources in the article's reception section is pretty good. I wonder if there's any others discussing that controversy too. MoonJet (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article filled with reference bombing doesn't alters the need for clean up or removing them where three to four sources are enough. I was checking per norm to see that which is also true but moving per the sources, I was enough of WP:THREE that lied single handedly in discussing/reviewing the role of the fictional character best to me, has appeared and played by notable people; hence move forward at passing NFILMCHARACTERS. For sources, I can go with [4] and [5] from GamesRadar+, this one [6] and [7] from Gameinformer, and [8] from Den of Geek. I understand the nominators reason but here, it's just cleanup! The character is notable and cited. Maybe I could just help matters by removing the bombs! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Fair to say this has reached WP:SIGCOV. I can sympathize with the call for clean-up, and editors can find a better way to summarize the more trivial mentions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:10, 5 April 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.