Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Sparrow (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sparrow[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)

In-game character from the Tony Hawk's series. Previously deleted 12 years ago(!), thanks to JalenFolf for pointing that out. No actual relevant information, the sources provided aren't considered reliable. WP:VG has a well-curated list of reliable sources (see WP:VG/RS) and a custom Google search engine based on that list. No actual coverage by reliable sources regarding the character.

The Polygon article is actually a user-submitted piece.
GamesRadar has a list of "12 most satisfying punches".
The only actual useful information is in USGamer's "From Busted Teeth to Broken TVs: The Oral History of Tony Hawk's Underground", but that's it. The rest are user-submitted reviews and a list of cheat codes. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Tony Hawk's Underground, as was the consensus in the years-old AFD. Nothing in those 12 years have made the character any more notable than he was then. As the nom discussed, nearly all of the sources being used in the article are unusable, either being trivial mentions, from unreliable sources, or fluff pieces. Searches for additional sources turned up nothing in reliable, secondary sources. Rorshacma (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not inherited. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails the notability criteria. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 06:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly disagree with everything stated above. Most arguments made should be adressed in the GAN but are irrelevant for the deletion. While it should be debated in a GAN, the character's relevance is undebatable and why it is nominated for deletion is puzzling to me. Please consider the following points:
- The character is probably the most noteworthy in any sports game ever made. The reception and legacy section details, even if some of the articles may be user-submitted, a strong relevance. The fact that they are partly user-submitted can be adressed in the GAN but says nothing about actual relevance. Also, the nominator pointed out other sources exist, so they might as well be used. Relevance is not debatable here.
- The character appeared in 4 AAA games and a PSP release and is playable in each of them except one. Lucky Chloe is an unimportant character that appears in one (!) Tekken, has zero relevance for the series, yet has an own article. Same goes for most characters in Final Fantasy VI, most of them are GAs. Arbiter (Halo) is not even a character, yet is a FA. I could go on with examples for hours. Don't get me started on every unimportant side character from Lord of the Rings. So, why do we draw a line with Eric Sparrow?
- I tell you why. If you look at the GAs on video games, you see a strong bias towards Japanese RPG and fighting game characters (I'm not at all saing it is intentional). Especially the latter's relevance could be heavily debated. There are barely a dozen non-Japanese characters here. Yes, Eric Sparrow comes from a franchise of sports games. The best-selling of its generation to be exact. He is no less of a character then any other, sadly people tend to look down upon sports games and everything associated with it. We have a fleshed out, sourced article here that breaks that mold, yet people want to delete it, while keeping hundreds of much more questionable articles.

--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DasallmächtigeJ, we're discussing the character's relevance, so it clearly is debatable. The sources provided are not reliable, primary sources and user submitted. WP:NOTABILITY is WP:NOTINHERITED. You have to prove stand-alone notability: you can't just claim it is and leave it at that. Just because Tony Hawk's or specifically Tony Hawk's Underground passes the WP:GNG, doesn't mean everything associated with it does too. Yes, we know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Maybe you don't think that Lucky Chloe meets the notability requirement, yet that is still sourced by clearly reliable WP:VG/RS'es like IGN, GameSpot, GamePro and GameRevolution, unlike Eric Sparrow.

Like I said, there's a well-curated list of reliable sources, and the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine works fantastic. So if I look up "Eric Sparrow", I get five results. But hey, I could've made a mistake. I could've been too quick to judge. Let's go through the sources used in the article:

A "hands on" piece by IGN, it's about the game, and not about Eric Sparrow so does not necessarily prove stand-alone notability
The USGamer piece, already discussed, is the only thing notable
The Polygon user-submitted opinion piece does not prove stand-alone notability
Sources numbers four through ten are references to Tony Hawk's games. So those are all WP:PRIMARY sources, which might prove Eric Sparrow appears in the game, but don't count for notability
The GameRevolution Tony Hawk's Underground review is also about the game, and mentions Eric once
And so does GameRevolution's Tony Hawk's Underground 2 review, just once
Number thirteen is a repetition of the first, IGN, a review, and not about Eric Sparrow specifically
The Destructoid piece is about the game, though it does mention Sparrow more than most. Yet I'm pretty sure that "In Hawaii, Sparrow reveals himself as the ultimate snake in the grass. Sparrow, in what is one of gaming's most memorable acts of villainy, steals footage of the protagonist's McTwist over the whirring blade of a helicopter. He then edits himself into the video clip -- using what's best described as technical wizardry -- and uses the fudged footage to launch his career into the stratosphere.", italics my emphasis, is meant facetiously
Numbers 15 through 20 are not reliable sources (I've double-checked the WP:VG/RS list) and again, don't help

You think Eric Sparrow is "probably the most noteworthy in any sports game ever made"? I think there is no WP:SNOWBALL chance that the outcome of this discussion is anything else than delete. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are primary or are just mentioned a few times by video game publications. That doesn't assert any kind of notability. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing the application methodology in my essay. A lack of significant coverage in reliable sources focused on the subject specifically means this article is not notable enough to be a standalone article on the encyclopedia. Neutral on a redirect; it seems like an odd name redirect, but I’ve seen stranger. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma and others. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The prose of the reception is quite the stretch - it’s pretty weak. This looks like another one of those fictional character articles where all someone did is copy/paste every instance of a source mentioning him and included, disregarding the fact that little of substances is actually said. Sergecross73 msg me 21:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable character, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Close Suspend Deletion until GA Review is completed Regice2020 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Not a valid reason to close a deletion discussion. The GA review hasn't even been started. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 06:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do that, Regice2020? Besides the fact that most of the people here vote delete, WP:KEEP says nothing about an ongoing GAN to keep articles from being AfD'ed. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In order for an article to meet the General notability guideline the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here on this occassion there is a lack of in-depth reliable coverage due to a lot of the sources being user submitted hence it does not meet the guideline. In response to some of DasallmächtigeJ's if you think that Lucky Chloe and Arbiter (Halo) do not meet WP:GNG I suggest you discuss it on their respective talk pages but pointing that out here does not warrant this article to be kept (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current sources seem to be absolute fluff as dissected above. Probably wouldn't hurt to draft it. TTN (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2020 (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.