Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organization XIII

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 redirect‎ to Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Organization XIII. History remains if folks find incremental material to merge Star Mississippi 03:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organization XIII

Organization XIII (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)

Most of the sources were primary and about the game. None of the sources that talks about the character as a group, only this [1].

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Organization XIII per nom. There is also this bit of SIGCOV, and another article from Siliconera, but that's a repeat of the same publication and therefore does not qualify for GNG. I think they fall a bit short of standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Zxcvbnm. There isn't really
  WP:SIGCOV about this group. A lot of the coverage is about individual characters (Roxas and Xion), and even then, the coverage is not that significant. Both are already covered at the redirect target, and one even has its own article. That means there would be nothing lost by deleting this list, but it is a viable search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Comment Five pages of talk archives- a delisted
  WP:BEFORE check was done here, as the talk page archives and delisted GA status should be immediate red flags for an AfD nomination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You realize that the Good Article process has no relation to the notability of an article, and in fact, being notable is not a requirement for something to be a Good Article.

  It's possible to find a content farm-y list of almost everything fictional these days, but such things have ceased to be a reliable gauge of something's importance a long time ago. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While you're right that a lot of work is gone into it, none of your comment constitutes a valid keep argument. Per consensus at

  WP:VG/S, the sources you listed all fall into that territory of low-quality sourcing that is technically usable but not good evidence for notability. On short...you'll want to find a much stronger THREE to be persuasive. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I didn't know about VG/S, thank you for mentioning it. I see now that Valnet is listed as questionable reliability and that invalidates the sources I provided, so I will retract my !vote as I can't seem to find sources that aren't valnet related or from sites missing on the VG/S list. Darcyisverycute (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2024 (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.