Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corvo Attano (Dishonored)

Corvo Attano (Dishonored)

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

Delete for lack of notability outside of the game universe. This character completely fails the general notability guidelines. There is no independent discussion of the character in reliable sources; there are solely mentions of him in discussions of the game. There is also little to no likelihood of any future significant discussion in reliable sources. Pertinent information about the character is already at Dishonored#Characters. The Corvo Attano (Dishonored) article does not qualify for a speedy A7, because he is not a "real person". No additional redirect to Dishonored is required, as Corvo Attano already redirects there, and has since 2013. A prod is not useful, as it is highly likely that the author of this article, Chackoony, will contest it. Although the article has recently been created, in searching I found nothing that would suggest in any way notability. For example, in the single reference cited in the article, Corvo is not mentioned except for a link to a list of "Corvo's Gear". --Bejnar (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already covered amply in the main article, beyond notability, literally does not exist outside of this universe in these two games. Besides, is a disambig for Corvo Attano, which already rightly redirect to the article about the game. (Good game though. 9.5/10) TimothyJosephWood 16:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probably actually qualifies for A10, since there is nothing that is mergable, and no reason to redirect the disambiguation. TimothyJosephWood 16:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Chackoony here, creator of the article in question. Corvo Attano is a main character in a series that is on the fringes of the mainstream, and I figured he ought to have his own Wikipedia article, especially because Emily Kaldwin, the second (and most likely canon) protagonist of Dishonored 2 has her own article as well. If you'd like to delete Corvo's article, I would strongly recommend you begin a discussion on deleting Emily's as well. I wasn't aware inasmuch that Corvo lacks critical discussion outside of the game's forums, though I believe having an article for him anyways is useful for anyone who is interested in starting that discussion, considering that the material available on him right now on Wikipedia is not in-depth enough to support people's conversations around him. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor though, so I defer to your decisions and arguments on deciding whether or not to delete this article. I feel that Emily merits her own article because she has been discussed by many as an important step in introducing strong, independent, female protagonists, and that Corvo needs his own article because we need a central article to link to when speaking about his connections with Emily and the Dishonored universe. It seems to me that regardless of the conversations surrounding Corvo, having somewhat detailed information about him is important. Wikipedia ought to have information surrounding a character who is central to a game that's sold millions of copies, one who ties in so deeply to a game that many point to as one of the best "immersive sims" (a genre of games where the player has a lot of freedom, and their choices are reflected through in-game consequences) in the modern times. A character who is like the magnum opus of Harvey Smith, Arkane Studios, etc., all of these being articles that other Wikipedia editors deemed useful to have. Corvo's just a part of the web, in my opinion, and should have an article, if only to describe how the Arkane Studios team settled on him, how they think about him, and how his actions are reflected in the Chaos system of Dishonored, and how that plays back into the immersive sim genre. The full background of where he comes from can be ignored though, such as extensive details on his homeland.

@Chackoony:, maybe the better option here is to move the article to a draft, so that you can work on it more, and maybe submit it through our Articles for Creation board. You are probably right in the sense that a well constructed article with substantial depth like Emily Kaldwin is unlikely to be deleted. But at the same time, a stub on Corvo, like this one is, doesn't really add much beyond the main article. Moving it to a draft for the time being seems like it might be a good compromise. TimothyJosephWood 20:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood:, that sounds good, but can others find and edit the draft? I only wanted to type up the basics, then let others finish off the article.

@Chackoony:, other users can edit it, but because it will be in "draft space" they are unlikely to come across it. You will likely have to appeal for help in an appropriate forum like WikiProject Video games. I will post there now and see if anyone there has interest. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move~~ to Corvo Attano (over the redirect, its history doesn't need to be preserved). There seems to be ample depth of coverage of the character specifically, as with the game's other protagonist Emily Kaldwin. Some non-wiki non-blog coverage that I found: Evening Standard, Game Informer, Polygon.com, PC Gamer, Complex. This isn't my area of expertise so I don't know how reliable we typically consider these sources, but the number of them is a strong indicator of notability and this was just by page 2 of Google. I wouldn't object to moving the stub to draft space to build it out instead, it's just not really necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now, considering there's only a sentence or two of content, and an obvious redirect target (the subject's game) exists with far better content already present. Write up a draft and put it through WP:AFC or a WP:VG discussion to see if a separate article is warranted at that point or not. I also support moving it to just Corvo Attano - the disambiguation is not necessary. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working I haven't saved an article in a few days anyway. TimothyJosephWood 14:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Timothyjosephwood: Wow! You finished it! I think we can safely say the article has enough content, and that we've determined its relevancy on Wikipedia well enough to keep it here, right? So can we end the deletion discussion yet?

Keep It's now past the 20 mark. It's probably not comprehensive, but it should be enough that it can hang out in mainspace for others to continue to work on. It definitely adds content well above and beyond the main article for the game series, and it establishes that the character appeared in two games, a comic series, and one novel of a planned trilogy. Should fairly easily be enough for WP:GNG. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Also moved over redirect. TimothyJosephWood 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × a bunch) Keep given Timothyjosephwood's excellent work to expand the article; it has been moved over the redirect to Corvo Attano. ~~@Bejnar: if this expanded version satisfies your concern, can we close this discussion early?~~ Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needs sources that show notability outside the confines of the game itself. Almost all of the content added to the character article mainly belongs in the game's article—it's basic gameplay that you would expect of any character. Now if there is coverage about the role of Corvo in video game culture or in some kind of depth outside what any video game character would have, then you have a case. We don't just make articles on every character of every major media release. czar 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Czar It needs sources that show notability outside the confines of the game itself
Ummm...No? The only thing it is necessary to demonstrate is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nothing in WP:GNG necessitates fictional characters be notable for anything outside of their fictional universe. Compare the multiple article on Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is a starting point (re-read the notability guideline—it even says it's not a sole requirement/guarantee). Topics are presumed to be important when sources write about them, but when they are only covered as subtopics in context of their parent concepts, we cover them in their parent articles with due weight and only split out (summary style) if warranted by the sources. I can find you a whole lot of coverage on how tracking works in Pokemon Go or on the kinds of real-life interactions the game coordinated, but it doesn't necessarily mean that those concepts warrant their own articles. I can find you a whole lot of coverage specific to the Toad Rally game mode in Super Mario Run—more than that exists for Corvo—but it doesn't mean we need a separate article on it. Final Fantasy characters are subject to the same scrutiny—it's a split out from the game's article based on coverage specific to the characters, ostensibly because there is more to say about the characters than what would be due weight in the parent article. (Though I'd wager that some of those Final Fantasy character articles should be merged back too—some are kept as fait accompli and not because there is cause.) The same principle here: if Corvo is only covered as a character doing character things within Dishonored, it gets covered within the character section of the parent articles. If there is exceptional coverage of the character outside what would be appropriate to cover in the game article itself—such as how Emily Kaldwin was covered for her cultural impact as a female protagonist separate from coverage about the game itself—then there is more cause to split it out of the parent. czar 19:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just let the article speak for itself. Two published books, two announced books, a comic series, and two games. If you can find a place to merge all 18k of that into, then go for it. But I suspect you put more time into typing your criticism than you did reviewing the article. TimothyJosephWood 21:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]