Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyra and Mythra

Pyra and Mythra

Pyra and Mythra (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 propose merging because

Recently restored to article. There's just so little here that's not "they're in Xenoblade Chronicles 2", "they're in Smash", or "they have merch". The Rice Digital source is probably the best source. Despite the amount of article space devoted to it, the Inven Global source isn't really about Pyra and Mythra, it's about sexism in the Smash community. Everything else is about them as a gameplay element or merch. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't agree with the argument that there's so little information and merging it to the game article would be any better because the article contains much more content about the characters outside of Xenoblade Chronicles 2. The characters major appearances have only been in two games, hence why the coverage is so centered on them (They received more coverage because of Smash not their debut by the way). I don't know why you would include merch in that category (it only takes one small paragraph). Aside from Rice Digital, I think Automation and Kotaku are also good sources discussing the characters.. Lastly, I would suggest reassessing the Inven Global source. I find it odd that you think it was a weak source for them or maybe the article's prose give it that way. Kazama16 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  You're supposed to identify yourself as the article creator FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  I know but I'm not technically the creator, I just restored it. @MomoQca: is the creator. Kazama16 (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. There isn't much here that couldn't be on the main game page. That page also has extra context. As it is now, huge sections of the page are fan cruft, including a character description that assumes readers know what a Blade is, and three long paragraphs summarizing articles beat by beat. SenshiSun (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep The Automaton ref is actually providing some reception, and could be utilized more with the Inven Global one (reducing it down and letting Automaton's commentary from the author do the heavy lifting for that discussion), with a chaser of the commentary in This AVClub article. There's also a small bit of commentary in this Nintendo Force article as well as this retrospect of Xenoblade 2 from Famitsu. Famitsu additionally published an article in their magazine with the voice actress, a translation/transcription of which is available here. There's also this article from USgamer. La Légende Xenoblade, a Third Editions book, many also be worth looking up as those tend to give some character commentary and analysis. I will say a bigger problem though is that most of this reception is for Pyra: while I understand they are a package deal, putting them both in the title may be WP:UNDUE.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  IMO these new sources have the same problems as the ones before: they're not about Pyra/Mythra as characters; they're about them as part of a game. (My understanding of standalone article inclusion standards for fictional elements continues to be that we want to show that a reader would have a reason to read about them outside of the game(s) they appear in.) AVClub is reception for the game, Nintendo Force is commentary on them as a gameplay element in Smash, Famitsu is reception for the story of the game. I'll concede that I seem to hold a minority view here though. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: per Kung Fu Man. This article could use some trimming to remove fancruft but there is sufficient coverage of the characters to justify a standalone article. MidnightMayhem (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - per Kazama16 and Kung Fu Man. I believe coverage for article is enough for it to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Kung Fu Man. Go D. Usopp (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - per Kung Fu Man and Kazama16's rationale. Roberth Martinez (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Merge. If King Dedede doesn't deserve a page (despite having all the criterion here plus a lot more, and the Kirby series no longer has a dedicated character page), then neither do these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AltendoYT (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• @AltendoYT Not a valid merge/delete reason. We don't base which articles get to exist on those that don't.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Keep. Article appears crufty but at any rate I am satisfied that references 5, 19 and 20 all provide reception which meets GNG; no comment on the sources provided by KFM. @AltendoYT, for your reference, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you haven't already. Gommeh ^{(talk! sign!)} 15:30, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

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.