Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caveira (Rainbow Six Siege)

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 Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege. (I assume this is the Merge target being suggested) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caveira (Rainbow Six Siege)

[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's reception is strictly about a gameplay element and not a character itself, in fact that is the sole crux of the article and feels akin to WP:GAMEGUIDE as this means next to nothing to a casual reader. The bikini/lingerie discussion also relates more to the person doing the cosplay than the character itself, and one of the cosplay examples is from an official contest by Ubisoft. Lastly the Controversy section is more development for the game itself, and also offers no discussion on the character itself. Trying to do research with WP:BEFORE also turned up nothing either actually discussing Caveira as a character. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see a list of characters being a thing for sure. That said, it's hard to fathom individual operators being standalone notable. This is literally a page ripped straight from FANDOM. People put an intense amount of effort into this, but you can't make notable what isn't actually notable - it is a bit flummoxing that someone would have looked at this minor character and assumed they were standalone article material. I have no prejudice towards the material being preserved in user-space if someone wishes to work on a list article in the future. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - definitely a REFBOMB and prose bloat situation to make it look like there's a lot more here than there really is. Better represented in an article of another aspect of the franchise. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as compromise. The reception of the character in the first subsection is a list of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and does not meet the standard for WP:SIGCOV. The rest of the reception section is off topic. It should be removed, or at best, adds trivial mentions about other topics that don't really demonstrate notability for this character. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per nom. Also, controversy section isn't talking about the character directly. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, was unable to find adequate coverage to demonstrate GNG. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:00, 30 June 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.