Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathclaw

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 Fallout (series). Sandstein 08:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deathclaw

[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'm having hard time nominating this article for deletion. Article fails notability thou. GlatorNator (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well cited, and the reception section features multiple reliable sources noting the sheer popularity of the deathclaw and the high profile antics players like to use it for. I don’t see how this fails notability guidelines. Dronebogus (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale amounts to WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. Perhaps ever so slightly more effort could be expended going through the existing sources and explaining why they are not proof of notability. While the sources are not exactly the greatest, mods that allow players to tame Deathclaws got much publicity from the gaming press, to the point Bethesda changed tack and made it possible officially ingame via DLC, showing their huge popularity. There's also this article, which, while from a content farm and not counting towards notability, can at least be used to provide lore information in the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also fleshed out the article just now with an additional, totally new book-based WP:RS that was not there before. If notability was unclear before, I don't think it is now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to whatever is appropriate. While there are a number of sources that have Deathclaw in the title, the actual aspects that define Deathclaw as a notable figure seems to be in passing. For instance, the maze sources are about the maze, not the Deathclaw, and nothing in the articles even really comments on the Deathclaw specifically. The adoption comments are pretty mild, with all of it easily summed up in a sentence about Deathclaw's popularity for players adopting creatures. The Xbox source calling them one of Fallout's deadliest enemies is pretty weak too. Overall, the reception section is rife with content that seems like it has been made to look more substantial than it actually is in order to justify the article. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge to a new section about it in Fallout (series)? Possibly something like “reoccurring elements”? Dronebogus (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does anyone have access to Abbey, Kristen L. "Self-Reliance in Fallout 4: Environmental Humanities in Serious Gaming." Resilience: A Journal of the Environmental Humanities 9, no. 1 (2021): 80-106. doi:10.1353/res.2021.0010. I can see Deathclaw mentioned in preview, but can't tell if this is SIGCOV or not. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens Sadly, I don't. The journal looks very minor, not indexed in anything I checked. Their website is powered by Wordpress, they have no institutional affiliation (although their three editors seem to have). And they are not open access. Their impact is probably close to zero. I am not saying they are unreliable, but they are effectively one step above being a non-entity as far as both science and the rest of the world are concerned, IMHO. My point is, that an article published in such a journal is not going to be particularly good, to say the least. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to some parent Fallout article. Coverage is in passing or low quality (gaming listicles, etc.). I am not impressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nonsensical AfD nomination with no coherent deletion rationale provided by the OP, or any genuine attempt to articulate why the topic does not meet the standards set by WP:GNG. Haleth (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the people proposing merging or redirecting are doing so based on the nominator's rationale, instead arguing that it doesn't meet the basic notability baseline. If this was actually speedily kept, I'd just end up renominating it myself with a proper rationale, so doing so would just be a waste of time. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring specifically to the OP's deletion rationale (or lack of one to be precise), which does not comply with Wikipedia's deletion policy and should've been speedily closed as keep by a passerby editor at the first instance. It's absolutely your prerogative as to whether concerns over the notability of the topic has any merit, or to pursue any course of action (AfD/merge) that leads to a standalone page for this article be taken off mainspace. Haleth (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OP did give a rationale, specifically #8 in the deletion policy, "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". While no guideline was specified one might assume they are talking about WP:GNG. So I'd actually argue why it should be kept source wise rather than trying to procedurally speedy keep, because it's not speedy keep material. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But no reason was ever provided as to why the article's subject fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. The admin who relisted this discussion also found the OP's deletion rationale to be unsatisfactory. Haleth (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Piotrus and MsDusa. Should probably merged into Fallout (series)#Series overview. OceanHok (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rd I'm not seeing the cultural impact that generally justifies this type of article. Passing coverage and not even the most memorable monster in its own series. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m team centaur! Dronebogus (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, disappointed with the so-so deletion rationale. No support for Deletion some editors advocating Keep, and would those arguing Keep or Merge specify a target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I guess Fallout (series). The article's contents could be incorporated in some way, but for now it could just as well be redirected. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fallout (series). No out-of-universe impact to justify a standalone article. The non-trivia can and should be sufficiently covered in context within the parent article. A series fictional element needs standalone coverage to justify standalone treatment independent of its series. A completed version of the parent article would have a complete overlap with the content to be covered in this child article. czar 04:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ridiculous to say "no out-of-universe impact" when the character is mentioned in a real book and numerous articles about real fans modding Deathclaws into the game, but I digress. It feels like this statement was made without so much as a read over the article with how vague it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But a number of the mentions of Deathclaw modding aren't even about the Deathclaw, they're about the maze that the Deathclaw is in. And being mentioned in a book is not itself a significant example of notability (or even necessarily an example). - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fan tributes within the series clearly fall within "in-universe" impact. If the point of this character article is its role within the series and its fandom, we already have a dedicated article on that topic that fits this content sufficiently. czar 07:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fallout series, or another valid target. The critical reception is more of a passing description of the characters, and not really a significant reception. Even the fan reception seems to mention the Deathclaw only in passing. The Deathclaw probably deserves mention as part of a larger, higher quality article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:53, 1 March 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.