Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enderman (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Minecraft#gameplay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enderman

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Enderman (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)

I do not believe that this is notable enough for it's own article. For a video game character to have an article, it needs to meet the general notability guidelines, with significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources. And for video game characters, that significant coverage is generally critical reception. Which this character does not have. Most sources that discuss the subject only do so in passing or are extremely shallow in coverage. For example, most of the reception is either cited to WP:VALNET sources (which cannot establish notability) (e.g. GameRant, Collider), or academic sourcing that doesn't say anything about the subject or gives very surface level observations that are not actual analysis of Endermen. The only exception to this is a VG247 source, but it too is extremely shallow and says almost nothing if you actually look at it critically [1]. It is a couple of sentences worth of commentary. (Anything from this point on in this paragraph was added after the relisting) There is also extensive sourcing towards articles such as "How to defeat Enderman" or something along those lines, but that is not coverage of the Enderman itself as a character, and is trivial game-guide coverage anyways. Meanwhile, this source from PC Gamer, which seems substantial on paper, is really just a primary source/interview discussing how the Enderman was created. Due to the lack of significant coverage regarding the Enderman itself, this fails GNG.

Several AfDs have taken place in the past regarding this subject and I do not believe that there is anything different then and now. I advise redirecting the article back to Minecraft. Edit: While I was writing this nomination an IP editor came through and nuked most of the Reception. This is the revision that the deletion arguments are based on. λ NegativeMP1 18:29, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Please see User_talk:Zxcvbnm#Regarding Enderman for context on this article. This article was moved to mainspace by circumventing multiple review declines at WP:AfC and previous deletion discussions. @Newbamboo has been asked to undo this. 11WB (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was procedurally closed because of the parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 August 10 and is now reopened in consequence of that discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most relevant to Minecraft's Adventure Update, so at best I would merge a relevant section on Minecraft. IgelRM (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – To start with, Enderman isn't a character, but rather a type of creature, which doesn't change the requirements it has to meet, but does change how it is discussed in media. I'd be very surprised if they didn't have SIGCOV given their cultural impact. Some potential starting points [2][3][4][5][6] – Ike Lek (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a "sources MUST exist" argument that is not based on actual source analysis or policy. Anyways, pretty much all of the sources linked here - assuming they're even usable as academic sources in the first place - do not actually provide in-depth discussions of the Enderman outside of the context of Minecraft's gameplay mechanics. The second-to-last one only uses Enderman as part of a data set and doesn't discuss the character at all. You need to find discussion of the Enderman from a critical perspective, and reception regarding their cultural impact and/or role in Minecraft, as is the case with most video game characters. These sources, while seeming promising just from the fact they are seemingly usable academic analysis, don't cut it. λ NegativeMP1 04:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still not a character. Mechanics are absolutely valid points of coverage. Ike Lek (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Still not a character" is this supposed to change how notability should be perceived of the subject? Because it doesn't. Fictional video game species have always been held to similar standards as real characters. If anything, notability of species from video games has been historically more stringent than characters due to them exclusively being game mechanics for the most part, and it being way harder to prove that a game mechanic is independently notable from the game. Should Endermen be held to that standard? If so, then that's not exactly working in the articles favor. Anyways, mechanics would be valid points of coverage if it was in depth, providing commentary regarding it, and not just giving surface-level coverage that may as well be limited to saying that the 'species' exists. The second-to-last one is not SIGCOV, it uses the Enderman as a point in a data set and only gives a few sentences worth of a shallow description of what an Enderman is. The others from what I can access are not that much better. What would go in a reception section? Nothing. What would prove the articles worth? Nothing. These examples are borderline-useless, surface level coverage that does not discuss anything further than the fact Enderman are a thing that exists in Minecraft. The PC Gamer source is honestly stronger than all of these combined, and that one can't fully contribute to notability either because most of it is an interview. These sources provide a similar level of depth regarding the Endermen as the Scholastic Minecraft guide books from a decade ago. λ NegativeMP1 04:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of them talks substantially about how the word Enderman is translated. One talks a bit about its impact on art, although that is admittedly less in-depth. These both go beyond mechanics. So does the last one it seems, but I don't have full-text access. Those were just meant to be a starting point to show that there is more out there. Ike Lek (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious to see the WP:THREE that definitively prove notability rather than just "starting points". Otherwise it is in essence a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument, which is invalid. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was thinking about this overnight. (1) special thanks to 11wallisb for coming back to strike through their comment. When someone thinks an AFC reviewer has got it wrong, they are entirely entitled to move the article to mainspace themselves, and AfD is the subsequent, correct "court of appeal" where the article's fate is decided by the wider community. (2) Gaming always has sourcing problems, and the problem is us, not gaming. This is something for general debate at the reliable sources noticeboard. Gaming experts tend to make a lot of use of modern venues such as blogs rather than more traditional news sites, which is problematic because we only allow blogs if they're by someone with acknowledged expertise, but there's an underlying assumption that anyone writing about computer games is just a guy who messes around in games, not an expert. The PC Gamer article[7] illustrates two further issues. Firstly, the separation of indication-of-notability from reliability-to-use-in-article: The fact that a major outlet chooses to interview someone about a subject is an indication, independent of the subject, that the subject is notable. But the interviewee is talking about their own work, which means we have to consider that they might be biased. So interview articles confer notability but might not be usable to supply information. Secondly, news reporters research what they write about by interviewing people. Whether they then write the interview in their own voice or in the voice of the person they interviewed doesn't actually change the source of the information. Our attitude to interviews is that of an ostrich inserting its head into the sand. All in all, I consider the PC Gamer article to be a good source. (3) I'm not greatly in favour of a merge, because the minecraft article is already enormous; it doesn't really have room for a proper summary of Enderman, especially given that a few other mobs are equally worthy of attention. I'd actually prefer to see a proper article, either stand-alone or covering all mobs, but I'm painfully aware of the clash between the need for sources and the obvious attention that the Enderman has got (in all the places we choose not to trust). It's a hard one. Elemimele (talk) 07:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This is somewhat a hard one which usually leads me to recommend a merge. PC Gamer is a solid source but it's mostly an interview. Collider is one of those Valnet pieces that is frequently dismissed for being "churnalism". I don't know what's wrong with just mentioning this in the Minecraft article and just focus on the core point without the filler. Archrogue (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Looking over the actual sourcing carefully, there's just not enough meat on this bone to indicate notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to minecraft#gameplay. from a look at this ludicrously confusing case, i've come to the conclusions that endermen really don't have enough to warrant an article, but could have a quick mention in that section, that we should probably have an actual rule against sourcesmustexist arguments (if sources can be or were found, i wanna see them), and that endermen are built like tumblr sexymen wait what who said that consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree that this was confusing (it was even more so during the AfD-DRV concurrent phase a week back). I actually decided to use this situation as an answer for one of the questions at NPP/S regarding communicating with creators of new pages here. I did my best to sum up the entire situation (from my perspective) in the answer I gave there. It ultimately came down to a few decisions made (including by me) that weren't well thought out. I think now that we're here, it did eventually work its way confusingly where it was meant to be. 11WB (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Yikes! The confusing history of this dispute goes over my head. So let's just look at the sourcing. The sources flirt close to significant coverage. But, where sustained, most of it lacks evaluation or commentary. Here's the Endermen in this new update, here's what they do. They're creepy and challenging enemies. Even where significant coverage is present, this lack of depth tends to be fatal for a character or concept article, because it doesn't justify a standalone article. Clearer guidance on where the line is drawn for characters in a fictional work would be nice, but my gut feeling is that it isn't drawn here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I don't want to officially make a vote here considering I would need more time to read this whole situation over, but this seems about what I would say if that matters at all. The Enderman seems to be mentioned as a game mechanic or as a part of the cultural influence of Slenderman doesnt seem to make it notable, though I also think it is very close to reaching that status. A person of sorts (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This message is not a !vote and not intended to influence any editor into !voting a certain way. This article has had quite a bit of discussion recently, here and elsewhere. Having seen the most recent !votes for merge, I thought it would be good to note for the record that I, earlier this month, and another AfC reviewer back in April did decline this article with the reason being that the (then) draft didn't have sufficient content on its own to warrant a standalone article and should be merged into the main Minecraft article. 11WB (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Enderman_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1314694192"