Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabal (Mortal Kombat)

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 List of Mortal Kombat characters. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kabal (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)

Like many other lesser Mortal Kombat characters, no longer meets general notability standards due to lack of viable third-party coverage. Should be redirected to the MK character article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect To List of Mortal Kombat characters. Very minor character with an unnecessary spinout - merits only a list entry. The reception scrapes the bottom of the barrel of fancruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meaningless comment It’s not so much an unnecessary spinout, but more about how Wiki standards for VG notability have evolved over the years (the Reptile article just had its GA status rightfully revoked), plus time has simply not been kind to the midcard MK characters. What was considered good reception back in the day is now outdated and superficial, hence a lot of MK character articles getting the ax as of late. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a spinout - it was merged in 2008 and spun back out in 2012, then went back and forth until it was permanently spun out in 2014 with a massive expansion (of cruft). At that point, guidelines for notability were well established. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both assertions are correct, and not mutually exclusive. It's both. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per above. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters#Kabal per above. –Vipz (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and there's a lot more sources out there (only if you look for them though). Not real sure what the sudden interest in MK character deletions is, but Reptile, Shinnok, Smoke and Baraka are either all now up for deletion or just passed it. Is every MK character going to be nominated?KatoKungLee (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of them do not seem to be notable for anything besides a mention at List of Mortal Kombat characters and their sources were heavily WP:REFBOMBed to give the false appearance of notability. I would expect most of them to not withstand an AfD. There is the odd character like Mileena who may be notable in their own right, though her article would not really stand up to modern Good Article standards and needs a massive pruning in parts to remove all the "So and so ranked her 12th on the hottest female characters list" sentences. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A mere claim to notability with no corroborating evidence other than "sources exist" is not sufficient. This is an encyclopaedia. Not a database of video game characters. Evidence of notability needs to be provided. Please list your best three sources that demonstrate notability and I will change my submission to keep. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The “there’s sources out there” argument bugs the [expletive] out of me. If someone thinks there are sources out there for an article on the chopping block, then for Pete’s sake, they need to go find them. I cleaned up the article several months ago, which doesn’t make me special, but there were simply no new viable sources out there. And no, not every character will be put up for deletion, which would be overkill. Baraka had been tagged for notability since last November following the first rash of redirects. For being the mega franchise MK is, unfortunately it’s either feast or famine in regards to coverage of the characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but as I've already told you, this is not a "recent trend", there have been many MK characters at AFD in recent months/years. It's not indicative of anything beyond experienced editors noticing shoddy articles existing. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters per nom. No SIGCOV, lots of cruft. // Timothy :: talk 10:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - character does not appear to be independently notable by Wikipedia standards. None of the sources submitted to this AFD would constitute significant coverage from a third party reliable source. I can run through them if I must, but it feels like most editors already see pretty easily that the source quality thus far is extremely low. Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is clearly fancruft. I'm sorry, but there is no SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Mortal Kombat characters: Per nom and Sergecross73. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I understand the merge votes considering the current state of the article, however, I've been keeping my eye on this one for a while, and I've found this this, this and this. The last one, for instance, touches upon censorship. The first one is particular in-depth. I'm not sure on the reliability of this one, but here's article of him on an old archive site. As with Kung Lao, there might be more out there, so I'll continue looking. But as it is, I feel this passes the notability test. MoonJet (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bleeding Cool is merely a blurb and is not notable coverage. ComicBook's short piece about his Brutality doesn't actually discuss censorship at all. And the "Sony Geniuses" is a blog that is definitely not viable VG content. C'mon, man. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ComicBook source not that much, but it's good to use to find more sources that might uncover more and better sources. Bleeding Cool is not much on its own, but might help with other sources. MoonJet (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Den of Geek is the only source that is useful that you've cited. Article still fails notability guidelines for third party sources. GlatorNator (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly weak example of RS coverage. Doesn't bode well if you're putting your best examples out first. Sergecross73 msg me 22:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect lacking of independent sources. GlatorNator (talk) 12:13, 24 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.