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 Elden Ring. Star Mississippi 02:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

let_me_solo_her[edit]

Let_me_solo_her (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Reasons for deletion: A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events), fails Notability test.} Rekiinom (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Dont 78.16.143.86 (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Contripirate (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards for Notable People. Contripirate (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I actually went on this article a few days ago, wondering if I should improve it or have it tagged for deletion. I think that the article has issues relating to tone. Now, I have a question. @Rekiinom: and @Contripirate: if your accounts are new, how did you find articles for deletion? LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 18:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Google Rekiinom (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - This strikes me as similar to the Luigi Death Stare meme - there's no shortage of reliable sources covering it...but there's also very little of substance to be said, and is probably better as a small section/paragraph in the parent article (Elden Ring). Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Elden Ring in line with Sergecross73's comment. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Elden Ring. This meme is not notable beyond the general coverage of Elden Ring. This player being involved in an event that was covered by news outlets is part of the general news coverage of the game and so should be included on that page. WP:NOTWHOSWHO In addition, a lot of the information here is either unsourced or seemingly original research (or both). 80.193.9.61 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge seems fair enough, he looks to have gained significant media coverage within the purview of the game itself. --Aabicus (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A person that plays a videogame is hardly article-worthy. You may as well build an article for every internet alias that's been posted a few times, down to and including that guy on the wii who's "famous" for saying something racially provocative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:9400:8BA0:BF:CC4F:D1DA:3A70:3500 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Elden Ring#Reception Fails WP:BLP1E. Jumpytoo Talk 03:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fail WP:BLP1E, and I don't see what information would be worth of merging to the game's article without being seen as trivia. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 14:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Does WP:BLP1E apply? I don't think this is a low-profile individual. They seem to be answering questions directed at them about the event. see: WP:LPI 80.193.9.61 (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Elden Ring#Reception Yet another case of an internet phenomenon considered large enough to warrant its own article. If it got significantly more coverage that presented more than just "an important Elden ring player", perhaps it could be salvaged. At the moment, it should be merged into Elden Ring as a part of game reception. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads a bit too much like a KYM article Erik Humphrey (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the main Elden Ring page as others have noted. Much of the page content comes from an interview with the player, which is not a suitable source for passing the GNG per WP:IS. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Four references in the article... two (from IGN and from PC Gamer) are exclusively about this player. The rest -- what does it matter? AfD is a place to decide whether the subject of an article meets general notability guidelines, not to deliberate on whether it is stupid. jp×g 01:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is absolutely false! AFD has to do wtih the entire article guidelines, not just notability. The rest matters a LOT actually, and 2 sources is nowhere near enough to be WP:SIGCOV. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Let's talk sources. The reliable source coverage of this topic is extended, enduring, non-trivial, and in-depth, from the individual's first appearance through to their backstory and cultural responses (fan art and mods).[1] The main PC Gamer and IGN sources in the article give interpretation and analysis beyond primary source interview, and the sources in the Further reading provide additional context. Additionally, the same stories have received extended coverage in other outlets. The coverage of this topic clearly goes beyond the reception of Elden Ring and clearly has more in-depth discussion than "Luigi death stare", mainly that sources have made enough original statements about this independent phenomenon that the article can support what has currently been written not to mention the sources eligible for expansion. czar 02:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meaningless trivia driven in popularity through FromSoft's corporate sensationalism. Confounding that it should even be mentioned on Wikipedia. WP:NOTWHOSWHO - Christiaanp (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator of this AfD did not advocate any valid grounds for deletion per WP:GNG, demonstrate they have properly done a WP:BEFORE, or provide any proper source analysis to demonstrate that the cited sources do not establish notability. I share the concerns expressed by LPS and MLP Fan about the nominator being potentially a bad faith actor. They appear to be a single purpose account who specifically joined Wikipedia just to start an AfD on the topic; though their argument for deletion based on A7 is a misapplication of Wikipedia policy, their actions indicate that they know more about Wikipedia processes then their inexperience would suggest. The majority of editors who have participated in this discussion have not offered arguments based on Wikipedia's relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO) to rebut the presumption of notability established by the cited sources. There is a living person behind the player character, but based on a close inspection of the sources I believe that it is the character who is notable as opposed to its human creator, so WP:BLP1E does not apply.

Not liking the tone of what a reliable source has to say about the subject is certainly a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is still not a ground for deletion per guideline or policy. Agitating for deletion because the topic is in your subjective opinion "meaningless trivia" driven by "corporate sensationalism" does not make any sense because the developers and publisher have no hand in encouraging or promoting the topic's growing popularity. The ongoing glut of coverage from reliable and independent sources about the subject shows that it is anything but "meaningless trivia"; I am already seeing more recent content from sources like this, this, or this emerging from the past few days, which have not yet been cited in this article, that talk about a widely shared mod made by another third party unrelated to Tsuboi and the increasing number of fan art as part of the viral trend, so it is definitely salvagable and not a case of WP:TOOSOON or WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Article content, however broad or sparse, does not determine notability. Luigi Death Stare, a company-produced feature that unexpectedly went viral, is not an appropriate comparison because there are hardly any similarities between both topics; the "Let me solo her" character and viral phenomenon has more in common with Leeroy Jenkins in that both are fan-made characters, and that their players' unusual actions have achieved viral fame. This means a merge into the reception section of Elder Ring would be inappropriate and undue because not a single aspect of this fan-made character/player is a feature of the game itself, but is supported by original statements about this independent phenomenon.

The only valid arguments against this topic getting a standalone article in my opinion is that it may be too narrow in focus and probably should be discussed within the context of a wider Elder Ring fandom topic. For now, we have evidence of multiple sources which are specifically devoted to discussing the character in non-trivial detail and not as part of general Elden Ring gameplay or reception, so that fulfills the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. If there is WP:SIGCOV, then there is a presumption that a given topic may be entitled to be covered in a standalone article. Nothing on the pages of WP:GNG or even WP:NFICTION demand that a character must be "important" to the world to be considered notable. A direct quotation from WP:DELAFD, AfD processes "are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy". To conclude, the nomination and all of the pile-on delete votes ought to be discarded because no valid reason for deletion has been advanced in this discussion. For that matter, positions which flatly contradict established policy, are logically fallacious or based on personal views only, and those that show a lack of understanding of the issue at hand.

PS: On a side note, why do we even allow random editors below autoconfirmed or extended confirmed status the capability to conduct drive-by AfD nominations, especially when this is a topic area is notorious for rampant bad faith actions from block evading sockpuppets? Haleth (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If several other editors agree with the nomination to delete/merge then why would it present a problem? Not like they started this and saw full opposition and were hostile about it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator called for deletion because the contents are allegedly not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Some editors responded by calling for a merge as a compromise. They are not the same thing. If there is a suitable merge target I’d support it, but in my opinion there isn’t one at the time of writing. You’ve already made up your mind, so let’s agree to disagree. Haleth (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Elden Ring. There is nothing that would really be lost by culling everything but a sentence or two from this article and placing that back in Elden Ring's. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge It seems reasonable to me to pare it down and merge into Elden Ring's "PvP and emergent gameplay" category. It looks more fitting than the "Reception" segment, with this kind of player interaction being textbook emergent gameplay. UnlikelyEvent (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect People will search for this player/term and including the content at Elden_Ring#Reception and then making the article a redirect makes sense. — Mainly 14:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect: The scope of the article is really narrow. Elden Ring is not long enough to justify a split of content like this. A minor section in Elder Ring, similar to that of Overwatch (video game)#Legacy, or a small paragraph similar to that of Monster Hunter: World#Reception would be more appropriate. OceanHok (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect: Just doesn't seem notable enough outside of the context of Elden Ring. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2022 (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.