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. Participants formed consensus that the citations allowed the subject to pass WP:GNG. No users !voted keep either. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 11:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gouken[edit]

Gouken (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)

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV guidelines with poor reception section that's either about his gameplay or, you guessed it, the usual listicles. Merge with List of Street Fighter characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This one is overstepping I'm afraid, I believe it has SIGCOV. Even in the article itself, there are a Gamespot article and IGN article, both with critical opinions about Gouken as a character. He also is mentioned in PLAY magazine here, which, while not containing opinions for the most part, I'd say wraps up the GNG issue due to the sizable mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He's certainly in good company in the Play article, but the other two are primarily about his gameplay and don't go in-depth about the character itself. Is gameplay coverage part of VG SIGCOV guidelines? Too much and it starts veering into WP:GAMEGUIDE territory. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought the gameplay coverage could help notability, I was wrong lol. "Changed my vote". GlatorNator (ᴛ) 18:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess Gouken could be just barely notable like Balrog (Street Fighter) and Fei Long. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 10:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It also may be a possibility to merge Sheng Long into the article as a section. Given that Gouken is essentially the official version of Sheng Long, it seems possibly redundant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting idea. Given that article is a GA, it could be a bit controversial for other editors to propose merging it. But I would support a merge if initiated. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 10:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that it became a GA in 2009, it was literally right as Gouken was released to the public. Up until that point, the character had always been Sheng Long, so there was some confusion. However, there is direct proof that Gouken IS meant to be Sheng Long, according to the devs, so there seems to be no reason to keep them separate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being completely honest I think that would be a terrible idea, as that'd probably lead to some confusion, especially given Sheng Long almost ended up a character himself in that SF movie game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article literally says "Ono later confirmed in an interview with Play magazine that Gouken's inclusion in the title was fan service in response to fans requesting Sheng Long's presence in the game". Not sure how much more direct it has to be. I wouldn't mind trying to get Gouken to Good Article to make up for Sheng Long losing its GA status, assuming the article is kept and merge happens. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's specifically about his inclusion in Street Fighter IV however. Gouken was created well before that and his name even comes from a separate publication. Akuma has more direct correlation with the rumor. Trying to squeeze Gouken in there when the character was inspired by multiple sources doesn't make sense.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sheng Long should definitely remain a standalone article as he's far more notable. If we're talking about merging, Gouken should probably be merged into SL instead of the other way around. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Sources presented above might be useful for the character's notability. Unfortunately, the article right now is in bad shape. Very unlikely someone will improve it. Merge Per Kung Fu Man source analysis on Play. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the character list. This is going to be a change of pace for me, but while the sources above are good they're primarily about his gameplay, and not discussing his design or character which is what's more needed for a standalone article. The play article is significant, but primarily discussing the Sheng Long April Fool's joke there. I don't think this one has notability on his own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A character's gameplay can be relevant as long as there's actual analysis of it. Simply listing out moves they can do is not SIGCOV. However, going indepth as to what moves are good and in what situations can potentially be SIGCOV. In GameSpot's case, it has analysis such as "he'll quickly become a fan fave thanks to his strong offensive skills (particularly the ability to send angled hadokens, which makes him a tough opponent to approach via the air)." Which is more than just "Gouken will be fun to play, maybe, possibly, well it seems cool, sayonara"! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Gameplay usually is important for notablity if there's exceptional discussion about it (think like say Rugal's insane difficulty, or a character having a signature move that's memed heavily, stuff like that). How would those move analysis help a reader understand Gouken's signfigance outside of being a Street Fighter IV character?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would point you to the PLAY Magazine article, which states that fan demand for "Sheng Long" was so strong he was made into a real character by developers, an unusual example of fans influencing a developer to change their own game. (But since you don't believe Sheng Long and Gouken are that closely linked, per below, I predict I would have a difficult time convincing you that is relevant).

  Yes, Gouken existed as a separate character from Sheng Long, but the decision to put him in the game with that design was undeniably based on the EGM hoax - as stated in reliable sources. A separate PLAY interview states Gouken was added as "fanservice" for Sheng Long. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Zxcvbnm, there is literally concept art of Gouken for Street Fighter Alpha, seen here, which itself was based off Ryu's mentor in the Street Fighter II: Ryu manga seen here, down to the name. I get wanting to keep an article, but even with this your idea falls apart because notability isn't inherited. You'd be better off trying to find sources to keep Gouken afloat on its own accord.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While the reception section is admittedly poor (at least in its current state), that's a pretty impressive development section. Also, keep in mind that Gouken, much like Akuma before him, as born out of the whole Sheng Long urban legend, giving a good source for notability. Gouken is also discussed here, and while I can't access the whole thing, this seems discuss him some too. The sources shown here shows that he has enough for a small, but notable, article, which is the main reason notability exists. MoonJet (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The thesis, while a good read, mentions Gouken all of three times in passing in a 162-page document. That won’t do it. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be sure I think coverage is pretty slim, but Gouken has two articles entirely about his moves and how good they are, which is more than can be said about other characters. I also think that the PLAY Magazine article can be used to reliably argue that Sheng Long should be merged into Gouken per WP:OVERLAP, as "two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap and might be WP:REDUNDANT", which would make him notable beyond a doubt. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also the April Fools page from EGM itself, which uses Gouken and Sheng Long interchangeably. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because by Street Fighter III, Gouken was established as a character, and the joke of Sheng Long being Ryu's master doesn't work the same. Gouken was established thanks to the Street Fighter II: Ryu manga, and appears in concept art and even Akuma's ending for Street Fight Alpha, well before Ono had any bearing on the series' direction. Outside of his inclusion in Street Fighter IV, the EGM Sheng Long joke has no bearing on Gouken's development, and far more on Akuma's development, which was in direct response to the rumor running rampant. This idea makes no sense, Zxcvbnm.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per significant coverage demonstrated by other editors. Merko (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Adequate citations seem to have been found. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Don't really have much to add, but looking through the sources, I also agree that the sources provided prove he passes WP:GNG. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I went and found an MA thesis that talks about the back story a bit, people will really write a thesis about anything I guess. As it stands now the article passes WP:GNG. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:49, 13 May 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.