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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. As per the discussion herein, I have added the ((Cleanup AfD)) template to the article following this closure. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

[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)

Article contains mostly only "Top X", "one of the greatest" and other irrelevant stuffs. GlatorNator (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge (if applicable) into List of Mortal Kombat characters. While mentioned enough to include in a list, he does not merit a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:19, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An extremely notable character and the article is well sourced. If this were to go through, the other 15 or so characters with biographies would likely be put up next and then it would cascade into going after other games too. This really just comes across as WP:JDL and the reasons cited are very poor for such an in-depth article. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Arguments to avoid yourself, KatoKungLee. It comes down to notability of this character, not whether or not other articles might get deleted. I think GlatorNator is saying it lacks WP:SIGCOV, which is an actual argument and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly claim lacks WP:SIGCOV when there's 50 sources including games, tv shows, movies and comics? That is not what WP:SIGCOV is for. Assuming WP:JDL is a compliment here over other possibilities.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost, you should assume good faith and you definitely shouldn't assume what another person is thinking. GlatorNator hasn't said anything along the lines of IDONTLIKEIT.

I'm sorry, a "compliment"? It's bordering WP:UNCIVIL behavior, "it's a compliment that I'm thinking you must've made a mistake in your nomination". It's not a "compliment" at all that you've decided what another's thinking, you're basically saying WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR. Again, maybe check out WP:Arguments to avoid.

I haven't gone over the sources properly, but from a glance it's easy to see it's WP:REFBOMBed with a ton of primary sources. We need significant coverage, independent of the subject. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest going through the sources. There's a lot of coverage from various places. An example of lacking WP:SIGCOV is Michael Bramble. KatoKungLee (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove the validity of your own stance. You need to be outlining which specific sources show that there's significant coverage if you want your stance to be considered valid by the closing admin. Right now, as is, it'll just be discounted per WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Segrecross73 - There's multiple players guides listed. All are going to have bios or focused information on the character. He's listed as being featured in MK, MK DA, MK 4, MK Armageddon, UMK3, amongst other games and some of those games are going to have biographies. He's listed as being featured in Goro House of Pain. This article is directly about him - https://www.denofgeek.com/games/mortal-kombat-x-the-strange-history-of-reptile/. This is a profile on Reptile - https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters3/reptile.html. This article goes into a lot of coverage on Reptile - https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/an-oral-history-of-mortal-kombat. This one is all about Reptile - https://www.dualshockers.com/reptile-has-been-treated-terribly-in-mortal-kombat-games-and-lore/. This has a quick recap about Reptile amidst selling his toy - https://bleedingcool.com/collectibles/mortal-kombats-reptile-receives-exclusive-storm-collectibles-figure/. This is a profile on how to use Reptile and that goes into what he does.- https://primagames.com/tips/mortal-kombat-x-how-play-reptile-combos-and-strategies. This is all about Reptile - https://www.thegamer.com/mortal-kombat-reptile-no-sense/. This all about Reptile - https://www.looper.com/390725/biggest-unanswered-questions-in-mortal-kombat/. There's an article on his origin here - http://www.factfiend.com/suprisingly-elaborate-origin-mortal-kombats-reptile/. There's other books and videos listed, amongst various lists, where he's going to have information. OP has not claimed to have access to every source or seen every source. I don't have access to every source. To get in touch with the dozens of people involved in the sourcing of this article would be very hard considering it's been over 15 years. To order these books and games to even track down a VHS player to get 100% proof would take a significant amount of resources that nobody can be expected to have. But none of it would matter anyway, because if the same discussion pops back up in a month and I don't happen to see it, it would be gone. I also don't see why the same argument wouldn't be applied to the other 15 characters listed in the template or other characters in other video games or practically anything since the system can significantly be WP:GAME by challenging articles long after the original writers and their sources are no longer available. I think there's also copyright concerns since you can't post someone's video game, comic, movie or television show without permission. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asking you to find/prove every piece of SIGCOV that's ever existed on a subject. Just maybe WP:THREE good examples is often a good number to persuade people. Your Den of Geek source is probably a persuasive example. Never heard of "Mel Magazine" so not sure of that one. Also, as others have stated, please try to understand WP:OSE. You need to evaluate each character article on its own merits. As an active participant at AFD, I can personally verify that a number of MK characters have been nominated and eventually deleted in recent months. So other articles existing currently isn't a valid defense for this one existing... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to check out WP:VG/S - a bunch of your examples are listed as unreliable or unusable for proving notability due to their tendency to create churnalism. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be familiar with how we establish notability for video games. See below. That a character appears in a game doesn't mean it's notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is another one of WP:Arguments to avoid. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge what can be salvaged. It's WP:REFBOMBed. What doesn't help establish notability are:
video games the character appears in
credits of the games
a tweet thanking voice actors
artwork from pre-production of the games
films based upon the video games
official strategy guides about the games
developer diaries
interview with the game's director
comics the character appears in
an animated film the character appears in
top x characters/Easter eggs/5 DLC characters/etc
hands-on impressions with a game

What's left is not WP:SIGCOV. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see source table below. This discussion is a mess, but the one thing that's clear: KatoKungLee is right that Reptile passes WP:GNG.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Den of Geek - April 10, 2015	As far as I can tell, I have never heard of a single source where a fictional character of all things is non-independent of a media outlet. Pretty sure none of MK's creators are affiliated with Den of Geek either.	Per WP:VG/RS	Lengthy 2300 word article discussing the history of the character, while also claiming that he was the first hidden video game character in fighting game history.	✔ Yes
GamesRadar - April 14, 2011	Again, character isn't affiliated with the outlet.	Per WP:VG/RS	An extremely lengthy history about him along with Shang Tsung. Article contains six pages of material with him discussed in well over hundreds of words.	✔ Yes
CBR - April 17, 2021		Per WP:CMC/REF	Decently significant coverage, goes into his background and history as a character along with some analysis on him.	✔ Yes
DualShockers - July 22, 2022		Barely, per WP:VG/RS - last discussion leaned towards situationally reliable.	Another decently lengthy article about his character, adding some secondary commentary and analysis on his character development.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Overall, there should be enough to prove he meets the notability guidelines. Also, I'd argue that some of the listicles, such as those from Complex and GameRevolution should also contribute partially to notability along with these sources. But that's a topic for another day. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been consensus in the video game project that CBR is generally content farm-y and shouldn't be used towards evidence of notability. That list disingenously cites a different list from WikiProject Comics. Video games are not under that project's purview. The DualShockers article is written in a very fannish way with limited commentary besides "y'all did him dirty". The Den of Geek article is quite good, but GamesRadar has little commentary on the character. I disagree that these sources are evidence of notability, as the article continues to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE even with the sources added - there isn't enough information to discuss "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works". If anything putting a bunch of green boxes there falsely inflates the source material's significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I was initially reluctant to add CBR to the source table, but I think it's reliable in this particular instance. I checked the project page for CBR and it wasn't mentioned on the list - only mentioned in discussions a couple times in relation to sister sites Game Rant and Screen Rant. Another discussion on WP:RSP concluded that it was situationally reliable, noting that it did have a stronger history in the past. I'd say CBR should be more on a case-by-case basis. I'd regard their listicles and "content-farm" articles as understandably unusable, but their more opinion/review based articles as usable, the same way Kotaku is regarded as fully reliable outside of "blog/geeky posts" with little "reporting significance."

As for WP:NOTPLOT, I'd say that the Den of Geek piece ticks all the boxes in discussing Reptile's development, design, reception and significance, while the GamesRadar piece tells of his development and design throughout most of the series' history. The DualShockers piece - while admittedly a bit fannish, could work as a reception piece for statements of the author's opinion. And finally, some of the listicles I saw in the article, while not exactly in-depth coverage in terms of word count, should also demonstrate evidence of the character's reception and significance. PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per sources provided above, and per multimedia adaptations of the character. BD2412 T 12:53, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found, and analysis provided: Meets WP:GNG after all. Daranios (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good effort at source analysis by PantheonRadiance, the results of which in my opinion satisfies concerns about whether the topic has WP:SIGCOV. By the way, the OP should improve their deletion rationales for future AfD nominations. Haleth (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources provided satisfy me, but even if you only tak Den of Geek, only one more source is needed to be notable. In the book The Ultimate History of Video Games here, a book on 30 years of video games dedicated half a page to Reptile documenting his creation. It quotes Boon, but still conveys the information. The same material outside of a quote becomes the intro to this GameRant piece (starts as a good source, then goes in-universe).
Another book Awesome Super Nintendo Secrets 3 tells you how to unlock him in the original game, but also provides the details of his creation.

"Game Doctor". Electronic Games. Vol. 2, no. 3. December 1993.
"Cheat Sheets". Electronic Gaming Monthly 53. Vol. 6, no. 12. December 1993.

The oral history gives quite a bit of weight to Reptile, and the above sources support the "hype" surrounding the mystery of the character. I'm not suggesting they confer notability, though, just support the other sources. I'm sure there's more like in GamePro, but searching ancient magazines is not easy... I don't understand the comments about other media. A character is a character, and if someone discusses a movie or comic depiction, that is discussion of the character. All in all, notable enough to keep. -2pou (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...but Tag for Cleanup While I wrote the original article, at some point it really got mangled after I stopped watching it. I do think it still works well enough on its own for both notability and content, but direly needs a proper cleanup.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article as it stands is a bloated monster and I completely sympathize with those that argued for its deletion. I strongly recommend that the article be worked on from an older version such as the one that Kung Fu Man made back in 2010 (e.g. [1]), which clearly is much better put together. Nomader (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2pou, Kung Fu Man, Nomader, Haleth, Darianos, and BD2412: Thanks everyone for their feedback. I just made a few minor changes to the article such as adding some archive links and sources, although it definitely still needs some cleanup. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PantheonRadiance: I think another direction to go here is to really merge down the listicle-like sections of the "other media" and "video game" sections to more focus on themes of appearances instead of striving to list out every single tiny cameo. The reason I so prefer the 2010 version that I linked, is that no media appearance is on its own -- it gives critical commentary and notes things about the appearance that made it unique, instead of just "In Mortal Kombat 11, Reptile isn't a playable character but.... (insert WP:GAMEGUIDE content here). This is getting a bit off of the AfD, but you're moving in the right direction! Nomader (talk) 06:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that sounds like a pretty good idea - it would make the article have a more encyclopedic style and appear less like an indiscriminate collection of trivia or a game guide. That 2010 version also looks like a solid foundation we can base the future of the article on, but of course with more info from said reliable sources and a bit of trimming from the primary sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nomader. This article has its problems, but notability seems to have been established. I agree that older versions of the article are cleaner, with fewer issues. I'm hoping editors will continue to work on this article with that guidance in mind. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:10, 16 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.