Talk:Luke fon Fabre

Notability

I don't believe this article meets the GNG based on its current sourcing. czar ♔ 00:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't there a discussion in the Sonic characters first? I heavily oppose. Multiple third party sources give the character several mention. The current sourcing details the way audience received the character, criticizing and praising him from various points of view.Tintor2 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel like the dev/creation section sets it above any of those minor Sonic character articles. And while his reception info also was picked from his game's reviews, those same reviews are more centralized on him at least because he is the main character, and one central to the plot in a rather story-heavy game. Again, the same cannot be said about third rate Sonic characters. I don't object to Luke's article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed- it might still work fine as a part of a characters article, if there are other characters from the game(s) that get that level of treatment (a la Characters of Final Fantasy XII), but as it stands I'm much happier with a character article that actually has development info and reception that's about the character's arc rather than one-word pull quotes than I am about some unnamed articles about paper-thin action game side characters. --PresN 05:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Just stop. --Niemti (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just reassessed this article to B-Class, but I'll echo Czar's concerns about notability. There's not much beyond Tales of the Abyss reviews being used to form the Reception section. I'm wondering whether a merge back to the main article would be more appropriate. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• As this goes up for GAN, want to reiterate that the same issues from before remain: the sourcing is about the game and the character is covered with a depth similar to its plot—doesn't mean that the plot or character warrants its own article. Should be merged back to the parent article as is. czar 06:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Just what does it need? It has coverage from the anime series too. I remember you once told me to use Ellie (The Last of Us) as a model even though she only appears in one game. Now I'm wondering whether Tidus should also be merged to his character list. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tintor2 and Czar: I didn't think it needed merging because the article I created for Drakengard 3 protagonist Zero passed GA and hasn't come under fire... yet. Then again, that's got quite an extensive reception section, which is an area this article can be seen as deficient. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merger - There is enough sourcing/content to warrant a stand-alone article. Czar is holding it to a standard higher than the community requires. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose merger – Though it isn't much, and almost all sources are about the game or the people rather than about the character, but it all piles up nicely. Appearances in best-character lists, comments on this character specifically by all of these reviews, the interviews with RPG Site and Silicon Era - it's all pretty alright. ~Mable (chat) 15:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Merge - As per all the Sonic and Punch Out cruft. The reception sources are reviews or lists, of which only a tiny fraction cover the character. You can just as easily make an "article" about Vehicle handling in Forza Horizon 3. - hahnchen 16:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I still stand by my comments 2.5 years ago - those terrible Sonic side-character articles were in a whole different league. They were 90% plot rehash and 10% short reception section featuring single word direct quotes like "cool" or "unnecessary". This is about a main character with actual developer commentary from the creators, and some well thought out discussion on his character development in the reception section. In my opinion, that's a precedent more relevant to the dealing of articles like Wart (character) than this article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hahnchen's Forza comment hits this on the head. How is this any different than writing an article on Forza Horizon's driving mechanics, or subconcepts like setting in any recent Final Fantasy game, motion capture in LA Noire, or the narrative elements in Heavy Rain? You can source their concept development from articles about the game's development, and their reception by pulling a line from every review about the game—it doesn't make the concept independently notable. That only comes from having a depth of coverage in which sources show that the concept has standalone importance from the game itself. Otherwise the concept just deserves due weight in the main article. czar 17:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - It seems sound to me. I've seen GAs in a worse state that didn't raise this kind of thing. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• Merge - While the article itself is well written and follows guidelines, just taking a look at the references used makes you wonder how this article even got to GAN, as half of them are quotes directly from the game (you ≥could use 100s of them as WP:OVERCITE fluff if you wanted), and some of them are just fan listings of how "cool" he is (which proves his popularity, but not really enough for an independent Wikipedia article to be written about him). If you got rid of these types of references, then would this article still be able to stand on its own? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Well, to be fair, even if there were 100 references citing the game, and 4-5 cited third party sources covering it in detail, it'd pass the lowest bars necessary for existence. It'd need cleanup, but it wouldn't deny it's existence. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but wouldn't kind of prevent it from becoming a GA? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps but not being GA material does ≥not necessary mean that a character article does not meet the standards for a stand alone article.--67.68.162.236 (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)