Talk:Characters of the Overwatch franchise

On Ashe and Cole/Jesse

I will point out that the fandom entry only points to this tweet from the Overwatch teach (post Jesse name change): [1] which gives zero indication that it was the Jesse name that he was running from. Additionally, the current bio for Ashe from the given link mentions only Cole, not Jesse [2] (I know the archive version is different). Thus, it is 100% original research to assume that the name Cole was trying to run from was "Jesse" without any other source. We know outside the game world this was why Blizzard changed Jesse to Cole, but we cannot transfer that ingame. Masem (t) 23:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Too much in-universe context

I feel like this has already been corrected several times, but I'm not sure how this article keeps coming back to being a repository of in-universe lore. The characters should be covered as they are in sources, i.e., outlining their use within the game and relative merits, with some very basic lore as additional, minor background. Right now starting with the character's "real name" is not only a misnomer but undue weight. czar 04:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Kiriko (Overwatch) into Characters of Overwatch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus seems to be split down the middle. No consensus. If you feel as though the article is still non-notable, I would recommend elevating it to AfD, where a clearer consensus may be obtained. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Obviously she passes GNG, as with every other Overwatch character, so attempted deletion would be unnecessary. However, all the sources that exist for her are announcement after announcement, with only run of the mill information about her or clickbait about random things. Ultimately, a standalone article would run afoul of the WP:INDISCRIMINATE part of notability, demonstrating no relevance to non fans. As a fan of Overwatch, I think she is a great character, but not an article-worthy character by Wikipedia standards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. At least for the moment as I'm currently going through the reference ideas I listed at her talk page. Would've gone through them earlier, but other articles and topics caught my eye. I was also going to search for more reference ideas (and still probably will do that), but I think I wanna get done with sifting through the present ref. ideas first. I'm currently on this VG247 source, that definitely helps Kiriko toward establishing GNG in the stand-alone article sense. Don't think relevance to non-fans necessarily needs to be shown, just an accessibility to them (as in, let's make the Kiriko information easy to read, navigate for non-fans). Obviously the addition of relevance would be valuable, though, so I'll see what I can do in terms of that.

As far as the sources for her being related to her announcement, I think that's fine though. Junker Queen and Sojourn are the other two characters that were new to OW (beyond beta testing and all that) at the sequel's early access launch. But their announcements/reveals weren't nearly as covered. Crude measure I know (didn't feel like really hunting down all the release-period coverage of all 3 characters tbh), but this can be seen through Google Trends, for example. So that leads me to think that Kiriko's announcement had an extra level coverage that other character's announcements didn't get. And the proximity to OW2 being available thru early access is definitely an aspect to that, but that's perhaps a sign she's associated with Overwatch 2 in a way other characters aren't (kinda like Tracer being the cover art character for OW1; almost feel like if OW2 had an official physical release Kiriko would be on the cover art of it, but that's neither here nor there).

Could change how I feel after going through the sources I'm gonna sift through, but that VG247 calls Kiriko "sort-of the mascot of Overwatch 2" and that gives me a fair amount of optimism about the inclusion of Kiriko as a stand-alone article. Soulbust (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The VG247 source may run afoul of WP:USERG given that it's simply restating fan comments. Specifically it talks about review aggregators and the comments of their users, and this is a somewhat similar situation. The last paragraph could be used as a summary of fan thoughts; everything else not so much. The last paragraph is only a few sentences. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The VG247 source does restate fan comments, but it also expands on them and the author offers his own concurring opinion on what those fan comments are discussing. I added that info right now, and I think in the wording I provided and context I built around the writer's opinion (and citing of fan comments), that the inclusion is in-line with NPOV. And as far as I can tell, I think WP:USERG would only apply(?) if we were trying to do something like:

Fans didn't like Kiriko's personality.

as opposed to how I've included it in the article. I tried to include the VG247 writer's concurrence and his summarization of fan consensus in a way that doesn't get bogged down by over-detailing. Hopefully it works right now. Soulbust (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Soulbust (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I've now gone through the 8 sources I included as reference ideas the other day. Five of them were incorporated right now in the Dev and design section, and also the Reception section. I merged two Dot Esports ones into a single citation as they covered the same info, only one being noted as the further continuation of complaints fans had with gameplay bugs. The eighth one was not included because I thought it only covered patch/update minutiae and in a way that's likely to be considered trivial.

As it stands now I think these sources meet the criteria for helping establish GNG:

1. About gameplay elements (Red Bull source)
2. About both art and gameplay development (Polygon 12 - considered one as far GNG since it's the same author in same publication)
3. About reception (VG247 source)

   This Dot Esports source can also be considered for its reception qualities

4. About her appearance outside of the game (The Verge source)

For good, safe measure, I also think (5) this GameSpot source (discussing gameplay elements similar to the Red Bull source, but also includes discussion on her lore and on Blizzard devs' plans for her incorporation into narrative elements); and (6) this Siliconera source (discussing skin-specific development and citing a member of the OW2 dev team) further help establish a core of GNG sources that the other sourcing can build around.

With that in mind and like I said, I'll still go seek out more reference ideas soon, but for now I'll be heading offline shortly. Soulbust (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Support Per nom opening statement, and happy to see someone recognizing that GNG is a presumption of notability and does not mean "we should, and absolutely must, have a spin out article". -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom. Oppose per recent findings of sources by KFM below. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Support per ferret and nom. Notability is not a metonym for having an article. Many notable things are better served to readers as part of a larger article with more context than independently. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Support. The majority of Overwatch character articles are announcement sources with two weeks of barely important post-release coverage and very little after that. If this article gets merged then we need to take a look at every other OW character and see how many actually deserve to have their own article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Winston is also about to be merged at AfD. Symmmetra seems standalone notable due to her depiction of autism. While I would also expect Zarya to be notable due to her status as a super strong woman, I have not found anything either in news or books so far to indicate the article would pass WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so she may merit a merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe also Doomfist and Sombra (Overwatch). Hanzo (Overwatch) is 50/50. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding my two cents on Zarya, but I feel she's fine but needs work. The Kotaku gay-icon ref needs to be expanded outward. There's also this article so there is SIGCOV and some real world impact. It's not an article I'd want to work on, but I feel she's fine.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A note is that with an upcoming Pride Month event, Blizzard is going to revisit the LGBT characters, see [3], which will influence those articles. Masem (t) 22:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Lot to unpack. For a moment, this almost made me think what's even the point here? But here we go; her GNG isn't iffy, marginal, or questionable as with Bastion or Winston before. Already noted in this talk page section made before the merge discussion that there were sources establishing notability. If Zxcvbnm wants to assert all OW characters meet GNG criteria, but not as stand-alones, that's fine. This is at least a little confusing to me because the reason Bastion was nom'd for deletion was because Bastion doesn't meet GNG as a stand-alone. Now we have a character in Kiriko that seems to have a consensus in that she does meet GNG as a stand-alone perhaps, but that that meeting doesn't really matter because GNG has a statement that "not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page". I question if we're truly trying to uphold the spirit of the general notability guideline, as opposed to being overly stringent about its letter. Because this article doesn't have an implausible stand-alone merit.

But if we want to really hone in on that letter, then I will point to how GNG states if a topic doesn't meet the 5 criteria (which Kiriko does), "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article." Merging Kiriko is essentially saying yeah Kiriko isn't quite meeting the GNG criteria, but still has some good stuff to discuss in the Characters of Overwatch article. But the thing is Kiriko does more than meet the GNG criteria.

There's a lot of "per nom" here. That nom is based off it being prone to WP:INDISCRIMINATE (which I'll touch on), and off the existing sources being only

1. "announcement after announcement" (no longer true, as post-announcement sourcing discussing reception and further development and design have been added)
2. "with only run of the mill information about her" (in any case, non-run of the mill information has been added)
3. or clickbait about random things (what was the clickbait info about random things added before? but yeah, newly added sourcing adds more than that now).

To plainly state it: The nom was immediately followed up by multiple sources being added to the article, helping flesh it out beyond just base-level discussion on thing such as gameplay elements and characterization. Article now includes development history, including thought process from the dev team, and a lot of reception on more than just the character's gameplay. Not only does this pass WP:GNG, but if we want to talk about how maybe we shouldn't view a topic passing WP:GNG as "we should, and absolutely must, have a spin out article" (which btw, I don't look at like that)... then I'd be remiss not to mention that Kiriko as a stand-alone also works as WP:SPINOUT and WP:CONSPLIT.

So then, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Okay, what in that policy can be applied here? Perhaps the only relevant section of that indiscriminate policy is the summary-only descriptions of works. Kiriko doesn't violate that section, as the article provides more than just what would be the fictional character equivalent of "summary-only" information. Namely, it fulfills the ask to discuss "development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." I don't think perfectly perhaps, but that's okay.

On concerns about helping the reader... so does that mean cutting this article down from something like this down to a few blurbs that I can complete reading without even having to scroll down (on my tiny laptop monitor at the standard 100% zoom, no less)? I'd hope not at least, because Kiriko is most definitely covered in sourcing in a fashion that warrants more than that. This Kiriko article is more than comfortably a touch above the two I've seen be merged so far (or about to be). Cutting the information here to the most bare-bones of information and stashing it in the middle of a giant Characters of Overwatch listing – that only offers chunk after chunk of text with no consideration to visual design helping the flow – isn't really the help to the reader we might hope it is. Soulbust (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Again I've added more sourcing that goes a long way in helping not only establish GNG marginally, but enough to merit a stand-alone article here. I've actually since found even more sourcing that I'll have to review to see if they may add to that. But at the very least it'll be six or seven reference ideas for legitimate supplemental sourcing on Kiriko. By the way what gap exists with the references considered okay to warrant a stand-alone over at Wrecking Ball, and the references I added post-this merge discussion being started?

I know for a fact I'm coming off as frustrated right now, and sorry about that. But it feels like those sources I added were glossed over in this discussion. I truly do hope that isn't the case. The very quick-in-succession or all-at-once merge, AfD, notability, etc., tagging that I've been trying to address only to be met with "well turns out those edits and contributions to address such tagging aren't really enough anyway" is feeling like a waste of time and effort. And that isn't something I feel on Wikipedia at all often. I struggle with being concise on talk pages, because I view it as a place to be open and thorough about our though-processes on trying to improve articles. But in hopes of maybe getting through to those who'd prefer concision:

I would keep Kiriko/oppose a merge, because she handily meets WP:GNG and WP:CONSPLIT criteria, particularly the spirit of the former. These sources include ample SIGCOV. There isn't really an area where she violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as per the nom, nor are the sources solely about her announcement, run of the mill info, or clickbait topics as per the nom. Soulbust (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Noting this is a second !vote for Soulbust, for discussion closer. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not at all a second vote... just an expansion on my initial thoughts and a response to what everyone else said. I feel like that response is warranted. But if it's a technical thing related to me bolding the keep Kiriko/oppose a merge text, let me know because I'll simply undo that... was just trying to make it more easily legible since my response was long. Soulbust (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In response to this I'd have to say: If you don't want to feel like your time and effort are wasted, article split requests exist. You can expand the character within the list itself, then request a split if you believe they are notable and the information is becoming too large to fit on a list! As we said before with Bastion, there is no reason to go and unilaterally make a spinoff, unless you are extremely familiar with notability criteria. That way, even if the character is not split, no time or effort ends up being wasted. If you don't take that advice to heart, it will just keep being frustrating, when your articles get merged back. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I like working on the articles and adding to them. Like I told you on Bastion, there are reasons I don't consult the Overwatch characters list. Even if I did, I'd rather just make something like this from mainly scratch.

I'm not really a fan of (or at least am puzzled by) you saying I unilaterally made a spinoff. First of all, there isn't a problem with me making the article in the first place (WP:BOLD), but the "unilaterally" wording makes it sound like I did something that wasn't in-line with other editors' consensus. There was no consensus yet to speak of, because, again the WP:BOLD decision to go ahead with article creation. Information I had included on the Kiriko page when I first made it wasn't even present in the Characters page prior as you can see here and here when compared to what I had already written up by here.

I actually am familiar with the notability criteria. Enough that even in OW1 era, mainly 2016 and 2017, when I was much younger, I really only dedicated my time to making/majorly working on characters I think satisfied that criteria (Tracer, D.Va, Widowmaker, and Mercy). With my only real whiff being Winston. But again, that was seven years ago and obviously sentiments have changed about such articles.

Didn't really work on Sombra too much (before being notified about the article's issues on my talk page), and certainly my involvement was minimal at best on Symmetra, Moira, Hanzo, Zarya, Doomfist, Wrecking Ball, or the long-since merged Genji.

I recently tried to expand to Pharah and Bastion. Pharah has been successfully shown to meet notability criteria. I made Bastion before all of these issues have begun to be raised on Pharah, Sombra, Zarya, Doomfist, etc. etc. Had these discussions arose beforehand I would have probably been less keen on making a Bastion article. But honestly I think my work on the Bastion one, post-your nomination of it for deletion went largely unaddressed in that AfD discussion, but it's fine. But I wouldn't be fine if that post-nomination work went unaddressed here on the Kiriko article that I believe is notches above the Bastion one. Again what gap exists between the sources you deemed enough to just weakly keep vote Wrecking Ball and the sources I have added since you suggested Kiriko for merging?

Reiterating that my above comment explains why your nom reasoning is now outdated, and why Kiriko as an article works (in consideration of GNG, INDISCRIMINATE, CONSPLIT, SPINOUT, and SIGCOV). Soulbust (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Soulbust I am not trying to sound rude here but I wouldn't use Pharah as an example of how you've improved these articles to demonstrate notability. Several strong sources were found by User:Cukie Gherkin and myself, and implemented by myself into the article. In fact I will argue a significant portion was rewritten. You need to put as much effort as you do into these wall of text responses into finding sources and understanding what sources are being asked for. Hell I'll go so far as to say I'm not particularly keen on some of the sourcing on the GA articles for characters in this series as I feel too many are either disjointed or citing smaller quick statements.

People are sitting here trying to say what does and doesn't work, and consensus seems to be showing very blatantly that you need to adapt your efforts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sources incorporated by you, I literally found and included as reference ideas.

Suggesting my contributions have been largely worked out of the article, as opposed to just added to, in addition to being restructured in an organization flow is kinda ridiculous and insulting. Yes, you've had a hand in the article being improved. You specifically initiated that you would "take over work on Egyptian birb lady" on my talk page... and I've been respectful of that development you added.

But regardless that comment is irrelevant to the Kiriko discussion that I feel has been bogged down too much. I'd rather see some addressing of the points I made in my second comment that I ended by saying the nom rationale is now outdated.

And consensus on what does and doesn't work? If you are talking about things like reception of gameplay elements, there are actually wide-ranging opinions voiced on that with many landing somewhere between your opinion and mine. But if you mean about on the Kiriko article specifically, then it's just short "per noms" followed by opinions that notability doesn't automatically warrant an article. I actually agree with that point. I just decided to voice my take that Kiriko more than just meets notability criteria (and why she doesn't "run afoul" of WP:INDISCRIMINATE — at the very least, I asked what section of that policy does she violate making her stand-alone status compromised. This question has not been addressed yet.) Soulbust (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll add a quick note about Pharah because I don't want to make it sound like your contributions have been supplemental in nature to what was already there. They've been very valuable and what you've been able to do with incorporating scholarly sources is greatly appreciated so thank you for that. But please don't portray my contributions as not still making up a non-insignificant portion of what's there. Soulbust (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'm not trying to be rude or downplay your contributions. But frankly speaking it was Cukie's source finding that caused the AfD to be withdrawn and how they were implemented into the article. Those are the sorts of sources you should be looking for, that people are looking for to demonstrate why a character should have a stand alone. That's why it's being brought up.

Here for example there is a clear consensus to merge, it's practically a snowball merge vote. That should be telling you that the reception isn't sufficient. It's not providing enough reason for a standalone. In fact the only reason I haven't also voted support was out of respect for you and my statement to give you a week before I revisited this. I do recognize you are trying to put effort into these and nobody wants to see an editor's efforts wasted. But it feels like you're digging in the wrong direction man.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't have issues with it being ultimately merged if that's consensus, I just feel like the votes made haven't addressed the referencing I included after the merge nom, as well as my point that the nom rationale is outdated. Soulbust (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I just think there still isn't enough there, at least for me personally. It feels more like conversation about a recently revealed character than anything long lasting and that's what a character really needs. This is partly too why I asked on another page if you had a link repository for things, because I am finding sources for stuff like Bastion and I do think he has some potential to be a standalone article again, a lot more than our foxy lady here.

Going much further, just looking at what I've been finding, you might be better off as a whole building up the core characters you can. Like Winston is a lost cause, but Zarya literally has a huge article sourced from Kotaku that is reduced to *one sentence* in the body of that article. You can at least get a good paragraph of discussion about how the russian people see her as a gay icon and the fact she isn't gay. But as the game has gone on I am noticing a lot less actual discussion about the later heroes went on. They just mostly got forgotten by the media outside of eSports, and steadily the game too once people realized Blizzard wasn't going to develop their cast beyond constant new faces.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. More like conversation about a recently revealed character? I mean does the proximity to release make the commentary any less legitimate, or any less emblematic of significant coverage? Because if not, then it would seem to me that that passes the benchmark set by editing policies and guidelines.

Note: I've replied to the other things you bring up on your talk page because they're really directed at just you, and I think they would perhaps add too much clutter/defocus the conversation about Kiriko that's at hand here. Soulbust (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: I've finished adding additional sources to the article. Some are related to her bugginess through gameplay design and development. I've also added info about the animation (with some expanding on how it depicts Kiriko and how media outlets received the short). But probably most importantly, I've added sourcing that in-depth discusses the character in a critical manner regarding her narrative elements. I think all of these combined (and combined with the information and sourcing added yesterday), but particularly that last part about her reception section go a long way at helping support stand-alone merit. And I hope these new additional edits don't go unconsidered in the potential merge discussion. Soulbust (talk) 08:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

And including links here for easy referral to the before version that was suggested for merging compared to the current version. Soulbust (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... it has improved some. I'll have to think about it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per expanded reception section, but particularly per these sources [4] [5]. And I realize that yes, one is from TheGamer...but we're establishing the importance of the subject separate from the main, not notability. And it does offer some good points that she is seen as a stereotypical Japanese design (something not often brought up in gaming characters, interestingly enough) while the other focuses on her to discuss a decline in overall character quality and analyzes her design. With the other sources, I feel satisfied this is fine to keep separate the character list.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I have changed my vote into Oppose after that findings. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. The efforts made seem to be adequate, though I would like to see more. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment @Zxcvbnm: Pinging you regarding the above to see if you would be willing to withdraw the merge proposal. I am confident I can get her up to GAN on the grounds of discussing the subject as a Japanese stereotype but also a decline in the game's character quality. I feel those grounds do give it some merit as a standalone subject. What do you think, worth a shot?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Right now I am on the fence, but I am not swayed 100%. I am particularly unimpressed with TheGamer opinion article, which feels more like a hit piece done to get clicks from gamers angry at Blizzard than a well-reasoned argument. TechRadar, while also criticizing the character, gives a reasoned argument. It is Wikipedia policy that sources not be blindly used simply because they exist. Because of that, I still believe the lack of quality sources means a merge is a good idea - especially because there are obvious more notable examples of characters from the very same series. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see that with TheGamer's article at all. It seems like we got a case of a Korean writer making the point that Japanese Overwatch characters are very pigeon holed and similar, and there lacks diversity in how Japanese Overwatch characters can be. I don't think there's merit to the idea that it's a "hit piece done to get clicks from gamers". - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I didn't get that vibe at all either. It also feels in line with the statement he's cited for in Alex Chen's article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  The opinion piece throws out assertions to get a rise out of people without actual explanation or proof. "a textbook example of how not to design or present a Japanese character". "Kiriko is the leader of a group of infinitely more interesting people called the Yōkai. I assume this is because other easily recognizable Japanese words, such as rōnin, were already taken." "they sanded off all the interesting parts about Japanese culture in favor of an overused trope masquerading as diversity". "Tragically, Blizzard’s approach to diversity does little". I see no real evidence towards any of these, and it feels like the author just got told to "make an article that insults Kiriko". Given TheGamer's previous rep towards clickbait, I don't think that's far off. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair those are still his opinions, and how we feel on a subject may not reflect on that. I feel too looking at some of his other articles it is consistent with his views and not TheGamer demanding a particular slant. Ultimately I really do think I could make this sing after I'm done with Widowmaker and Mei, but fwiw I'm not going to push you on this any further and just gonna see how this goes.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Proof"? Dawg, it's an opinion piece! How do you prove whether it's a "textbook example of how not to design or present a Japanese character"? But, if you're arguing that he doesn't offer an explanation for the first one, that is also just not true. He goes on to discuss the trailer (which is what he's referring to as "a textbook example") featuring "cringe-inducing references to honor," among other things. The next comment is a glib criticism of Blizzard using common Japanese words that people would recognize, something which requires no real explanation or proof. The next quote follows how Blizzard could have depicted a more relevant, less-depicted aspect of Japanese culture but chose to do something more generic instead. No proof required, and the explanation is already in the text. Why do you think that an Asian writer might just have an authentic opinion on an Asian character? Honestly, this seems like an incredible stretch. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  The original nom "However, all the sources that exist for her are announcement after announcement, with only run of the mill information about her or clickbait about random things."

  Do you not think the new sources added since then help address these perceived sourcing issues? The sources that exist for her (err, included for her in the stand-alone article) are no longer only announcement-related. They are no longer only run of the mill information. And they are no longer clickbait about random things... (and I'm confused as to if they ever were? If they were what is (are) the source(s) you are talking about, so it (or they) can be addressed/replaced/better used or reworked, if that hasn't already happened).

  What is the relevance by the way if other "obvious more notable examples of characters from the very same series" have articles or exist? Is the criteria needed to be cleared not a general one? Even if we want to use that guideline's clause that GNG is a "presumption of notability" and not necessarily a guarantee that an article should be made/warranted, once we do establish a notability does the subject really need something exceptional related to other characters? Literally not even tangibly measured, since the interpretation of the character meeting notability is clearly subjective based on how one wants to apply the guidelines or policies here. Or.... for a TL;DR version... why does it matter that Tracer or Pharah might be more notable? That doesn't take away space for Kiriko to be notable as well.

  I also agree with the previously stated outlooks on the TheGamer sourcing. Yes there is previous concern with the source, but WP:VG/RS explicitly states "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable". Published in October 2022, the source in question is well distanced from that. Soulbust (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References