Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elexis Sinclaire

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 merge‎ to Sin (video game). Sourcing is of insufficient depth to support a standalone article Star Mississippi 14:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elexis Sinclaire

[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 really was hoping this article would survive because from the heavy sourcing, one would assume there's meat there. However 99% of the sources all say the same thing: "she's sexy", with about that much depth. There is one character analysis in a scholarly paper and a book excerpt that examines her role as the protagonist' shadow in the first game, but those by themselves are not enough to carry the article. Other book mentions are trivial and list her alongside other characters in the vein of "Lara Croft led to this". In the end, it's another Niemti Special, complete with some sources that don't actually say what they're cited for, and magazines not fully cited so I can't verify their contents. Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no accounting for taste and WP:NOTPAPER. GNG is met with the sources in current article. It discusses in-depth, the character with regard to the real world, including impact on the reception of a game and followup media, sex appeal, sexualization, comparisons to other media, emotion/absence thereof, etc. This is all well sourced to secondary sources in the existing article, with an appropriately few (attributed) references to primary sources. FWIW, Literally dozens of sources are describing the characters body proportion in discussions of how that relates both to the real world and other media. —siro χ o 09:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are a slew of very brief statements that don't even constitute a single sentence, and several either cited badly or in questionable sources. Are you sure?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A single analysis isn't enough for the character to be notable. What the editor said above about the "dozens of sources" are only mostly from rankings/listicles (some are passing mentions) and isn't a WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the game. She's been talked about once in a scholarly effort. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was honestly shocked there was actually legitimate sourcing since this character is literally only remembered for having enormous breasts, so that should definitely be preserved. Dronebogus (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is adequate sourcing, in my opinion, to warrant the article's continued existence. There's the scholarly article, "Virtual Babes: gender, archetypes and computer games", which is definitely significant coverage by itself. Add one book excerpt, and together that makes the bare minimum for notability then. There's also enough aggregate non-trivial coverage, from various articles, listicles, list articles and anywhere in between. With regards to the WP:SIGCOV threshold, the guidelines do not say we must have an arbitrary number of articles or sources which specifically talk about the character in its entirety, as long as the coverage is non-trivial: there are cited sources which are single sentence blurbs or passing mentions about the character, and yet others which specifically highlight the character's importance as one of the series "main selling points", or whatever that means. Haleth (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What it means is “she has huge boobs and most gamers are (were?) straight men” Dronebogus (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's...actually pretty accurate. A lot of the statements are various degrees of that, or mentioning her alongside other characters briefly in the "post-Lara Croft sex sells" focus of female characters in video games. You end up with a weird series of repetition that ultimately just isn't saying much about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There isn't WP:SIGCOV to support an encyclopedic article. I agree with those who say that repeat comments about sexy characters doesn't lead to a useful reception section. This has come up at other AFDs and I think it's worth summarizing in the WP:VG/MOS. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sin (video game) as non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This academic article has a SIGCOV coverage and analysis of her (page long). Coupled with all the other sources (granted, many are pretty weak), I think she is borderline notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker @Greenish Pickle! who mention lack of SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same source cited by the nominator's rationale. That along seems to be not enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:44, 16 July 2023 (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.