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 keep. WP:SNOW close; 13 keeps, 0 deletes, small minority of third choice votes (so obviously no meaningful alternative interpretation of consensus there). It may need massive trimming but that falls under WP:NOTCLEANUP(non-admin closure)Dronebogus (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial characters, mostly a list of WP:GAMEGUIDE material, including weapon, in-universe description, rarity (whatever that means) and status. The actual notable stuff, design, reception and controversy, can easily be part of main article Genshin Impact. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while most of the individuals are not notable enough for an article themselves, overall characters have gotten plenty of coverage. Merging this to the main article would make that article excessively long. Weapon, rarity, and element are inherent characteristics of the characters so including them in a list like this makes sense, similar to what we do with the various lists of Pokémon. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The characters and story have garnered coverage, and I don't see how it is a game guide or is deserving of a TNT. I think the table may work better than prose, in this case, as well. I'm also not sure how listing the facets of the character and their gameplay (i.e., rarity and weapon or element type) is unencyclopedic either. There could obviously be improvements, but AfD is not cleanup. Add a tag or start something on the talk page. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listing off their "rarity", what elements they use, etc, is all very basic WP:GAMECRUFT content. It shouldn't be written in a way that is helping the reader play the game. That's not what an encyclopedia does. It should look and read much more like something like Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series. Which is why I say, very little would be kept if we converted it to appropriate encyclopedic content. Sergecross73msg me 14:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing anything at WP:GAMECRUFT that says anything against such stuff, especially when such aspects are tied to the character and gameplay. Nor does the page "help the reader". Why? I Ask (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GAMECRUFT point #7. Having a chart listing off rarity, element type, weapon types - all violate that point. Like half the chart violates GAMECRUFT. And the article is almost entirely made of these sorts of charts. This is the sort of stuff that goes on fan wikias and IGN walkthroughs, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73msg me 17:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the element, or their "vision", is central to the character. It's akin to mentioning a comic book character's superpower. Sure, I could see a case for rarity (although, I disagree), but in a game centered around elements, and how a person receives their vision, it's a central part of their characterization. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Your standards for GAMECRUFT are far looser than the community's standards. If this article survives AFD, I'll hold a separate discussion on what info/columns should be kept/deleted/reworked, but I assure you, this sort of stuff is going to have a consensus for trimming. Sergecross73msg me 18:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Elli and Why? I Ask:, that is exactlyWP:NOTGAMEGUIDE: mostly non-notable characters with their in-game statistics mentioned. That the story of Genshin Impact and the game itself is notable doesn't mean these characters are. There's nothing about character rarity or character statistics in the main article, because Genshin Impact#Gameplay is sufficient to describe gameplay.
There's a whole article by Screen Rant discussing Albedo's backstory [1]. Not every character needs full, in-depth coverage. That would mean none of these lists exist at all. But a good chunk of these characters have gotten significant coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does an article describing the character's in-game backstory help? What can also be used to describe a character's in-game backstory is... the game. Again, no significant coverage. Author of the piece, Rain Kengly, only writes about Genshin Impact, 86 articles on guides, items, weapons, and, yes, characters. Take a gander at List of The Last of Us characters, not "Joel can use these guns, has a health statistic of so much and can craft these weapons when in possesion of these items" but actual encyclopedic in nature with the focus on development (from third-party sources) and reception. There is no such coverage on the characters of Genshin Impact. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's couple sources on Albedo by Kotaku[2][3] and one from Forbes writer Paul Tassi [4] (yes, I know Forbes contributors is different from Forbes, but Tassi is fairly reputable). There are sources, you just don't like them. And this is just one character out of several dozen more. Coverage on a character's backstory may seem unhelpful, but it shows that there is coverage. And your analogy to Joel makes little sense. The Genshin list doesn't list health and the individual weapons used. It lists the weapon types and element which are core parts of the the entire character itself. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Providing some sources for a single character (especially one you even concede doesn't meet our reliability standards - Forbes contributors) is really not the home run argument you seem to think it is. I'm not !voting delete yet, but it's not because I'm particularly convinced by your arguments or thoughts on what acceptable content for this article, it's really more that I believe the sourcing and editor interest necessary to actually fix this mess probably does exist. Sergecross73msg me 16:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I believe that Tassi meets the subject-expert criterion listed under WP:FORBESCON. And it's a game based around characters that fall into different classes. Listing those classes is encyclopedic. It's like removing mentions of DPS, Tank, and Support from an Overwatch list. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to your own stances, but none of that is consistent with the current consensus found at WP:VG, MOS:VG, WP:VG/S, etc. Sergecross73msg me 17:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cite what stances oppose me. There are exceptions to every hard rule, and I think Tassi meets being a reliable source. However, if you're talking about not including weapon/element type and things, then please cite what says such things are not allowed. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, @Why? I Ask:, you're an experienced editor and so am I, please don't make assumptions whether or not I like these sources. I did do a WP: BEFORE check and did not just randomly decided to AfD this list. But maybe I'm not being clear. We need significant coveragebeyond just gameplay stuff. Like @Sergecross73: pointed out, weapon types, elements and rarities (again, not even mentioned in the article) are WP:GAMECRUFT. So sources if just report on those elements, that's not establishing standalone notability. We need more to go on. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a criterion for lists of fictional works to explicitly require reception and development and whatnot. Sure, for stand-alone articles, those are important. But this is a list because they're is coverage on most characters, but not enough for each character to have their own article (obviously). It meets WP:CSC. If you look up "Genshin Impact"+"Characters" in the WP:VG/RS search bar, you will find articles covering the characters, either individually (e.g., through release announcements) or as a whole. We have these lists because there is significant coverage of characters, but not enough for individuals. And this is how Wikipedia has operated with articles like List of Blood-C characters and List of BlazBlue characters since the project began. Barring some wide discussion that explicitly says such lists need to have each character intimately sourced, these articles are fit for Wikipedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Genshin. It's a gacha game that makes money on having loads and loads of characters. Necessarily most of them will have only passing influence on the plot. The list itself devotes a huge amount of space to game guide material. The sources as it stands is mostly development and reception info about the game itself, which would fit just fine in the main article. The coverage I've seen of the individual characters are WP:ROUTINE announcement articles about a new banner and the like. I'm also (not) amused by the implicit bias of the list, which includes English and Japanese voice actors, but not Chinese VAs of a game developed and published in China. If anything, it would include Chinese (country of origin) and English (language of this encyclopedia's readers) to follow MOSVG guidelines. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Genshin. The notability isn't in question based on a quick WP:BEFORE.[5][6][7] The problem is it's written like a WP:GAMEGUIDE. I believe someone can re-write this into an informative encyclopedia article. But if not then it can be summed up and merged. Archrogue (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge for now - per Axem, WP:GAMECRUFT, and WP:TNT. I believe there could be sufficient sourcing for splitting out an article about the characters - its a popular game that gets a lot of attention and coverage for its character. But I think it would take pretty much an entire restart to get it in a publishable state, because so much of it is inappropriate fancruft type content currently. Merge back the basics to the parent article for now, and only split out if someone someone drafts up something more akin to the various Characters of Final Fantasy articles. Sergecross73msg me 18:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of the list has already been established by others, and the other issues voiced are surmountable and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Foe example, the concerns about WP:GAMEGUIDE material can be resolved by deleting the relevant columns (and some columns like the element and weapon are WP:DEFINING characteristics, for example the sources given in this AfD include sentences like and will debut the Dendro Archon Nahida and the four-star sword Cryo character Layla as new playable characters, They are ‘The Wanderer’, a five-star Anemo catalyst user, and Faruzan, a four-star Anemo bow wielder, and Today, several notable Genshin Impact leakers stated that the geo element swordsman Albedo), and the concern about the lack of Chinese VA's being listed can be solved by adding them to the table. I do not see a need to WP:TNT the article, and any merge to the main article would cause the characters to be WP:UNDUE. JumpytooTalk 21:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, AFD is cleanup :). I don't think your link to WP:DEFINING is illustrating the point you intend. Weapon, element, and rarity may be important to these characters from an in-universe and gameplay perspective (and they're easy to source from routine coverage from gacha blogs), but they're not important to the story or to the encyclopedia we're building. Of course merging the entire table into Genshin would be "undue" but that's not what I'm suggesting. I don't think there's anything in the (almost entirely unreferenced) table that should be brought over, not even the voice actors. I think a short new section should be written in the main article about characters, and then port the design, reception, and controversy sections over to their respective ones in the main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources consistency use the element/weapon to describe a character, then I consider it encyclopedic to mention it as Wikipedia is built to summarize how RS describe topics. Your suggestion to remove information such as the voice actor in your proposed merge is not what the current standard for writing character articles/sections is, for example using the Final Fantasy XII article mentioned by Serge, each character mentions their English & native names, their voice actors, and a plot summary. Such merge would also have significant issues about deciding which characters are "important" enough, and as a live service game will introduce more characters which would very quickly justify a re-split through WP:PAGESIZE and WP:DUE. I could see a case of converting the table into a bulleted list similar to the "Non-playable characters", but that is a content issue which can be done on the talk page. JumpytooTalk 22:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a clarification - reliable source coverage does not override GAMECRUFT. I could go find 20 reliable sources right now that say that in Super Mario 64 you use the A button to jump and the C buttons to move the camera, and that still wouldn't change the fact that we don't add button controls to Wikipedia because we're not a game guide. Sergecross73msg me 22:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, would you support removing the type listing from the List of Pokémon articles? Why? I Ask (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good comparison because no reliable source makes the games controls the very first thing they say about Super Mario 64 (it's not DEFINING). But with the Genshin characters the first thing they say is frequently their element/weapon. Regardless, if the consensus is to not have the characters element or whatever, that can be done in 5 minutes by deleting the column. It does not require AfD. JumpytooTalk 17:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...You're saying the jump button in a platformer isn't defining...? That feels like a bit of a reach, but regardless, that's another discussion. Sergecross73msg me 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The FF article also has massively more and better sourcing, particularly on out of universe aspects of the game, characters, and design. You're welcome to incubate a draft of this list that looks more like the FF character article but until such time, I will still support merging. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a great argument for promoting expansion, perhaps by changing it to prose form to help kickstart that. But the problems raised are surmountable, and do not require TNT. I also note Jclemens comment below, remember that someone has to do the actual merge, there's a good chance a merge people will be happy with would look similar to the FF articles. JumpytooTalk 17:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I don't have a high opinion of people who make sweeping promises of improvements if only you'd vote keep on their poor sweet widdle article. Experience tells me their interest in doing so ends as soon as the AFD is over (or sooner!). I would like to see a solid draft in my hands before I will be convinced. Until then, the article history in the redirect will preserve any work that's salvageable. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability appears pretty clear, the only question seems to be should these characters be listed in a list, as currently, or as prose, a more encyclopedic approach. The latter is clearly preferable, and the transition from where it is now to where it can/should be is fixable through regular editing so deletion is not appropriate. Merging would have to make the same transform, so while it is a better ATD than redirection, it's not clear that it's any less work than just cleaning up the standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep currently full of gamecruft but I don't think it's bad enough to warrant a TNT. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 10:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a ton of coverage, although almost all of it is game-guide-spamish. Overall, I think WP:NLIST is met, and while I'd oppose creating pages for individual characters, a list seems fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: I originally objected, as one of the editors who rewrote the article so that it included more citations and the like, to having the article moved to mainspace. But now that the article is in mainspace it is important to remember that deletion is not cleanup. This is a notable topic; each playable character has gotten significant independent coverage in multiple sources that are not wikis (like Fandom) or SNSes (like Reddit). On the other hand, if this page has serious problems that a rewrite is needed, draftification may be the best bet. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went ahead and cut out some of the gamecruft information. There will need to be more encyclopedic information about the design of each character. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You know, I could sworn I've seen this in AFD before, and yet there's not previous listings here? Maybe I'm thinking of a similarly-named article? Anyway, the "controversy" section along is, I think, enough to meet the GNG and LISTN. Sure, it needs a lot of clean up, but I don't think its bad enough for a TNT. MoonJet (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This went to MfD as a draft. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? Elli (talk | contribs) 07:51, 12 November 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.