Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godot (Ace Attorney)

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 redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters. – Joe (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Godot (Ace Attorney)

[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)

Much like the since redirected articles on Apollo Justice and Larry Butz from last week, this article fails WP:GNG. Though I’m not sure if this article about this character from the original trilogy of the Ace Attorney video game series would be worthy enough to be saved if it were to be improved through the paragraph about the character in the List of Ace Attorney characters may be good enough to describe this character though the article itself has been tagged since 2014 that its lead section may need to be rewritten. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters and salt. A bunch of trivial mentions in reviews of the game is not enough to show this character is individually notable, Godot belongs on the character list and that's all._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has a 'Reception' section. I think the nominator should explain why it is not sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems notable enough and actually has sources. At the very least Draftify the article as I can actually see improvement happening, unlike the prior two.(Oinkers42) (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The material is really too thin to meet GNG to me; minor mentions in reviews versus being the main subject of critical commentary, retrospectives, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG. This character has a decent reception section. Wikipedia has gone crazy recently with fiction deletions as far as I'm concerned.★Trekker (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to clearly pass GNG. Captain Galaxy 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Looking at the reviews used, they're really not particularly substantial discussion on the character. It's usually just a single sentence going over the core characters, which is not actual significant coverage. TTN (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - a more thorough look at the reception shows that it’s largely shallow observations and passing mentions cherry-picked from video game reviews. There’s no significant coverage here. So it’s better covered in the context of the games he appeared in, just like all the sourcing does. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirct Ignoring the reception section, there is literally one unique sourced thing, the inspiration for the character's name, the rest is sorta standard character stuff for a VG character (including VAs and plot appearances). And none of the receptions are directly about the character, but about the games, pulling what the reviews mention about the character. As such, there's not a lot of in-depth coverage about Godot specifically, this is really a patchwork of trying to make it happen. The reception and brief facts can stay in the list of AA characters without loss. --Masem (t) 14:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ace Attorney characters - The "Reception" section of the article, which is the only portion that actually contains reliably sourced material, is very misleading as far as coverage of the actual character goes. All of the sources being used are reviews/information on the game, where the character is given one or two sentences at most. This is not substantial coverage, and does not clear the bar of the WP:GNG. Redirecting to the character list, where he is already covered, is a valid alternative to deletion, though. Rorshacma (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2020 (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.