Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Amber (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep given editor comments and the nominator's withdrawal of their nomination. Further discussion regarding a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page or that of the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Amber

AfDs for this article:

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

Rachel Amber (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)

After going through the sources readily, several either barely discussed the subject or only glancingly, while while the largest source discussing her character is clearly not reliable (while PopMatters may be, the author lists no credentials, is using a pen name, and another major article for the website is citing blockchain to Norse Mythology?). There aren't sources that appear to discuss the character outside of the scope of the games itself, or even the story for the first game as much. She's more a plot device than a fleshed out character, and what is there is failing SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE turned up much of the same, Rachel just doesn't seem to be independently notable. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it is not clear to me that PopMatters is non-RS. Can you point to a discussion where this consensus has been reached? I don't see anything on RSN. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying PopMatters isn't reliable, I'm arguing the author of that article isn't a reliable source for the reasons given. It's a site that encourages submissions without payment and the individual authors of those submissions should be considered accordingly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PopMatters is considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. They're a major publication in the music world. I didn't think they did much in the video game works though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They were actively publishing in the vg topic space at one point, like between 10 to 12 years ago. I found some useful material about vg topics. Haleth (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Odin famously traded his eye for the secrets of blockchain. Dronebogus (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a bit torn because while I do largely agree with the nominator's assessment of the article, this article did go through an AFD less than a year ago that resulted in an uncontroversial Keep consensus. I feel there should have at least been some attempt to bring up these concerns on the Talk page of the article to discuss a possible Merger before bringing it back to AFD within such a relatively short time after it was already Kept at AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the 1st afd lacks more participants and was maybe thoughtless closed. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered a merge proposal, but given how the previous AfD went felt it may trainwreck without a more organized discussion. Not to mention there seems to be an ongoing problem with those discussions being actually closed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, believe me, I am very sympathetic to the fact that Merge proposals on Talk pages very often have little participation and often go ages without a closure, which is why I usually don't bring this up in AFD discussions where merging or redirecting is the obvious correct option. Its just the fact that this particular article had a very recent AFD in which no one in it actually advocated deletion which kind of gives a bad look to the process. But, that's just my two cents - as I said, I actually do agree with the nomination, and would support a merge. Rorshacma (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Article could only come up with is a short paragraph about LGBT representation in Life is Strange and not specifically about Rachel. Also, there is zero developmental info specifically about the character from a real world perspective, and a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any better. Not to mention the WP:REFBOMBING of the article so it'll be like "Wow there are so many sources, this has to be notable". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a super expert on it, but am I wrong in believing this character is this franchise's example of Dead lesbian syndrome? Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greenish Pickle!: Did you mean developmental info as in "that was the thought process of the developers for the development this character"? This and this have bits on that, not a lot but more than zero; this has the side of the voice actress. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely dead lesbian syndrome. She did spend most of the relevant games' runtime being...dead in-universe. Haleth (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yeah, I did participate in the last AfD. I thought it looked familiar. Keep per my reasoning then. And can we agree that deletion is off the table, and this is really a discussion substantially constrained to whether the character article should be kept standalone, or merged to the various installments in which she appears? Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, or a full on redirect. That said how exactly do you feel it meets notability in light of things here? Your statement in the previous AfD was that the "article improvements" showed coverage in reliable sources, but that's being contested here as anything sufficient.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the game's article - I think a lot of the sources being put forth are critiques of the story itself rather than the character or their actions. Notability is not inherited, so just because a story elicited controversy over treating a character poorly does not make the character immediately notable. I believe the previous AfD conflated these two things incorrectly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said last time, even after the removal of PopMatters we still have sourced, non-stubby article, which has a recepetion section to balance plot summary even if that is not very long. So WP:WHYN is fullfilled and I see no reason for merge or even deletion. I also wonder if really all secondary sources have been analysed in WP:BEFORE. E.g. PC Invasion has an interesting characterization for Amber having (or being seen as having) two sides, which has not yet been worked into the article, which (at least for Before the Storm) flies into the face of She's more a plot device than a fleshed out character. Procedurally I think this should have be a merge discussion rather than an AfD. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem is it's still primarily a review of the game. Even by the reviewer's own admission the characterization here is up to the player's interpretation and not an analysis on their part as that's the case with all the game's characters. So maybe assume a bit of good faith as to why I said what I did.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry about my phrasing. What I should have said was that I see more in the secondary sources than you described. Like, I believe it's a good thing to have a multi-faceted character (Game of Thrones anyone?) which allows to say more about them. WP:GNG also specifically says that the topic does not need to be the source's main topic in order to count as significant coverage. Daranios (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios Can you tell me which sources meet WP:SIGCOV here? I just scanned the titles so far, but those suggest the artices are about the game rather than the character. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: The short answer, basically already present in my reply to Greenish Pickle!: The secondary sources collectively allow us to create a sourced, meaningful article which fullfills the requirement of WP:ALLPLOT and WP:WHYN, so as usual I personally am satisfied with that. Individually, I'd say "Life is Strange: Before the Storm broke our hearts in good and bad ways" has a significant amount to say on the character, both plot and commentary. I did not yet have time look into all secondary sources, but have already found that there was more in those I have looked at than was previously present in the article. Maybe I'll find time to look more next week. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios, I like your arguments as they have merit, and I personally believe that most if not all the out of universe information presented in the article should be preserved without question. However, I am indecisive as to whether the character's dead lesbian trope, as noted by Jclemens, should be refocused and covered within a dedicated reception section in the series article (since we have one now), or in a dedicated standalone article for the character as per status quo. Weak Keep if there is a consensus that there is nothing wrong with the status quo, but I am not opposed to a merge into the series article if and only if someone is willing to do up a proper section about the reception and analysis of her role as a plot device over the course of two games. Often people who advocate a merge or redirect simply will not bother with preserving adequately cited content, they just want that article gone from mainspace and such a position works as an adequate compromise per AfD guidelines. Haleth (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Haleth: I am not fundamentally opposed to a merge if there should be a majority who thinks the character analysis we have uncovered would be better presented within the context of the games'/series' articles. However I personally fall on the side of a stand-alone presentation being both feasible and preferable. And I do share the concern with regard to merges that really all relevant information is preserved (including the recent additions). Daranios (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer a merge myself, generally echoing Haleth, weak keep being second choice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the other way. Weak keep as a preference at this stage, merge being a second choice. Haleth (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think there's enough significant sources talking about the character outside of the games itself to work as a standalone article, and a lot of the commentary around the character is essentially commentary on the game's tropes itself versus Rachel. And I agree that the PopMatters article isn't reliable in this case; it's someone with a pseudonym, not a staff-bylined article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: My reasons for the keep !vote remains unchanged from last time. Daranios arguments are pretty convincing too. MoonJet (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the keep votes like the one above me would be counted as WP:NOTAVOTE "sources have to exist look at this one" which didn't say something. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the keep opinions are NOT based any unproven assumption that sources have to exist somewhere, but rather existing sources are present and linked for everyone to see and check both in the article and the previous deletion discussion, which is the most basic argument when notability has been put in question. So keep statments here are argument-based, not votes. The content of the sources is such that we have "a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" and more than "a few sentences", including a (now slightly expanded) decent-sized reception section. As that is the whole point why we have a notability requirement in the first place, I don't see why this article should be merged, much less deleted. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't even replied to Piotrus' question. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So? Daranios (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a relevant set of sources for the topic. If Laura Palmer’s worth a page, this character is too. LingLass (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:TRIVIAL are both insufficient arguments. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re missing the main point. To elaborate on my first sentence: the most recent five articles listed are themselves enough to show the significance of this character in this world. My second line was partly meant to be amusing. But, the fact that this comparison to Twin Peaks' Laura Plamer is also richly elaborated on in sources that don’t count here (e.g.,in Tumblr lore), does not make the other print sources less worthy. LingLass (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further secondary sources, where Rachel is not the main topic but which have non-trivial analysis of the character: "What's Past Is Prologue: Rewriting and Interfacing Shakespeare in Life Is Strange: Before the Storm", "Games of archiving queerly: artefact collection and defining queer romance in​ Gone Home and​ Life is Strange. Daranios (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another scholarly source analyzing Rachel (and Chloe) in a way which surely is not trivial (and talks about aspects different from the trope in question): Der ästhetische Vektor, p. 172 bottom-173, 181 bottom-182. Pinging Piotrus. Daranios (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented immediately above...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here’s the full citation of the second article that is archived above:
Drouin, R. A. (2019) ‘Games of archiving queerly: artefact collection and defining queer romance in Gone Home and Life is Strange', Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media, 16, pp. 24-37. doi: 10.33178/alpha.16.02
Some relevant quotes that show the centering of Amber:
“The exigency of numerous characters in their devotion to the missing Rachel Amber, a queer girl, links trauma to the premise of the game. By the game’s conclusion, players find Rachel’s corpse and realise she has been kidnapped, murdered, and potentially raped, shattering Chloe. Rachel, as the subject of a queer trauma archive, possesses a dual role of spectre and centrepiece. Haunting the archive, she is voiceless; details about her come second hand, and there are limited artefacts to compose her history. Players cannot fully understand her sexuality without the biased influence of Chloe, who is in love with her, or the prequel game, Life Is Strange: Before the Storm. It is also queer Chloe who preserves Rachel’s memory and memorialises her.” (p. 31)
“Sexuality and gender are overt themes and concerns of both Life Is Strange and Gone Home. This undisguised attention to queer girls prevents audiences from misconstruing the representation either game offers.” p. 34
“Despite relying on the deaths of queer girls to chronicle, the Life Is Strange universe equally hinges upon female devotion, from Chloe’s attachment of Rachel to the healing relationship between Chloe and Max. Rhetoric and archival theory influence queer representation in gaming.” p 34.
LingLass (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all merge opinions: After some expansions, which do not yet incorporate all secondary sources found, Rachel Amber currently has a longer Reception/analysis section than Max Caulfield or Chloe Price. I think incorporating these sourced parts into either the series' or the individual games' articles would be either akward or require a major restructuring, as none of these articles has a characters section yet. So do you believe a merge is really the most beneficial course of action at this point? Daranios (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess whether recent changes in expanding the article impact any editor's opinion on what should happen with this article. Also, I'd like to confirm where those advocating Merge want as a target article. Life Is Strange was referred to but there is no place on this article that is devoted to game characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While there have been modifications to the article since this started, and I applaud those efforts...I still feel the sources even the new ones are looking at the story of the games and not her as an independently notable character outside of them. It's just not being demonstrated. I would almost suggest merging the respective bits of commentary to their corresponding titles, as nothing would be lost then.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources added by Daranios. I feel that there's a bit of goalpost-shifting with how "independently notable" is being construed by some participants here. We can certainly agree that simply being a character in a notable game does not by itself make the article subject notable. But that does not mean that the character can only be notable if they are covered outside of any connection to the game (which would be an impossible standard). Rather, it is simply necessary that the character be covered in independent reliable sources, etc., that address the character directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. That standard seems amply met by the sources here, many of which have extensive discussion of this character's story. And while it does seem like perhaps some sort of in-depth article on characters in Life is Strange might be a more optimal way of arranging this content, until someone gets around to doing that labor-intensive reorg, this article seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per @Visviva. Okoslavia (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the point that you made about the goalpost-shifting. Haleth (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, echoing @Visviva on goalpost-shifting for this type of fictional biography page, and on there being an ample number of independent reliable sources.LingLass (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I feel like this has gone on excessively long, but I do agree with the above suggestion that a character article/"list" may be the better route to explore later. But there has been enough work on the article that it is in better shape now than it was which is at least an improvement, even with my notability concerns. Still I don't see a point in dragging this out further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure you can't withdraw it with this many Opposes present. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They can still announce their own withdrawal of their Delete !vote, but it won't warrant a speedy keep. Merko (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically only delete or redirect opinions preclude a speedy keep, and closes after relists are possible without citing a speedy criterion. Of course, that does depend on someone actually wanting to kick it over to the relevant article talk page and not wanting to wait 7 days. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I've been watching this one, and I feel it has hit the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Even if it's borderline, there is room for a merge discussion to make this topic area more organized. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep – It meets the notability criteria and is important for LGBTQ+ representation, and all of this information cannot be merged into the article and will be lost. At the very least it should be redirected so someone can recreate it in the future. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:48, 18 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Amber_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1166043531"