Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidoof


 * 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 redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon.  Sandstein  08:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Bidoof

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable Pokemon that fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV, and pulled from articles not actually about Bidoof itself. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect and salt, and not opposed to a Delete prior to redirect. Non-notable, doesn't pass WP:GNG. This article was merged in 2014, and stayed that way until Sept 2021. The IP who recreated the article is almost certainly an LTA/sock. It was quickly redirected again, then restored without a valid reason. There was then a consensus to redirect at WT:VG, followed by a talk page notification, a week wait, and a redirect. Then it was restored again, with a faulty argument that a talk page discussion isn't valid for redirecting. -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Redirect (and preferably delete and salt) - We had an extensive Wikiproject level discussion in which there was a consensus that it wasn't currently independently notable, and an unopposed discussion on the talk page about redirecting it. It's a very clear cut case of WP:POKEMON. Nothing but trivial passing mentions and inconsequential blurbs and memes from the fandom. Sergecross73   msg me  18:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Pokémon. It may not be notable on its own, but this is definitely a searched name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Adding a link to the discussion that happened on VGWP:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 159 Jumpytoo Talk 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon as an alternative to deletion. Haleth (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking through the references in the article I find this. Significant coverage in a reliable source.  They talk about a music video someone made about the character as well.  A different reliable source also gives them significant coverage .   D r e a m Focus  12:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This was exactly the sort of inconsequential coverage I was referring to above. And it's the same coverage that was presented in the Wikiproject discussion already. Those sources are all fluff, not something you can write an entire article around. We already have a place to list off Pokémon where there's little if importance to say. It's redirect target. Sergecross73   msg me  12:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An entire article has been written though. Look at the Reception section!  Anyway, significant coverage in a reliable source can not be dismissed because you consider it "fluff".  The general notability guidelines have been met.   D r e a m Focus  13:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? It's current status includes two massive paragraphs name dropping every single game he's ever appeared or cameo'd in. And another paragraph is just someone's writing out a basic description of him. It's all wikia junk - pure fan obsession stuff - not encyclopedic in the least. And don't get me started on that "reception" section listing off every time a journalist made a passing mention of him being "good/bad/cute" with no further elaboration. It's easy to say "read the article" but as soon as someone actually does, they see there's nothing of substance or significance on it. Just bloat to create the illusion of notability. Sergecross73   msg me  14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I take the view that the debate over the coverage from the Kotaku sources is irrelevant. Even though Kotaku have published articles entirely about the character, they seem to be within the context of or related to the "Bidoof Day" promotional event run by Nintendo and the developers, as opposed to a proper observation or analysis about the character's prominence or otherwise . Even the Rickroll video was not made by an uninvolved third party (i.e. fan or critic), but Pokemon company employees. The aforementioned articles provide good info that can be adequately covered within the character's entry in the list article or any other related pages, but are unhelpful in demonstrating whether the topic is notable enough to warrant the presumption of a standalone page because of Wikipedia's strong policy stance against promotionalism. I am otherwise not in favor of the article itself being deleted or salted, though a permanent semi-protection to deter inexperienced editors from un-redirecting it again without good cause may be a reasonable course of action. Haleth (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Reception is sufficient to make it notable or else we need a notability guidelines for Pokemon species and characters. If no such policy exists, this article and its efforts should not suffer. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a long-standing community consensus at WP:POKEMON. This fails it tremendously. Sergecross73   msg me  18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an essay, while the general notability guideline is of course a guideline. One you can ignore, the other you can not.   D r e a m Focus  18:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine, sourcing that weak doesn't satisfy the GNG either. The junk scraps you've scrounged up does not constitute significant coverage. But you've got a severe blind spot for that concept, so I won't waste my time arguing further. I believe unbiased, experienced editors will see through this ruse, like they usually do. Sergecross73   msg me  19:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per the delete and salt opinions above. Note that I actually prefer redirection, but the vindictive opinions above force me to !vote in such a manner since enough admins seem to count noses rather than arguments. To be clear: there's enough RS coverage for this to be a standalone article, even if editorially redirecting to a list makes better sense. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? We held a community discussion at the Wikiproject level, got a consensus, and I even waited another week after that to wait to wait and see if there was any last interest in improving it. After a week of silence, I redirected. Someone unilaterally undid the redirect weeks later, so this AFD was created. Everything has been done entirely by the book here.  Sergecross73   msg me  18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Is a fictional rodent really the hill you want to die on? Even looking comparatively to other Pokemon, if various legendaries couldn't withstand the notability test would a totally inconsequential random Pokemon do so? I do support fictional things being articles if they are of actual critical importance, but the reception of Bidoof is totally predicated on memes. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a general comment. The subject of a meme is treated like almost every topic on Wikipedia that is covered under WP:GNG. There are undisputably notable memes, and memes which lack that kind of prominence and is adequately covered as a section in another related article. If there are sources which provide WP:SIGCOV of the meme and makes a WP:CCOS for the topic, why would reception prose being "predicated on memes" be an issue? Haleth (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I have no problem with the redirection, but deleting the content and/or protecting the redirect is punitive, when WP:CCC and Pokemon is an active franchise. Pokémon test was created in 2005, so if it were an American, it could drive now. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. Salting is standard practice when people repeatedly recreate articles against consensus without improvement. If consensus changes, a simple discussion can remove the protection. Something that forces additional improvement and discussion in situations like this is nothing but a good thing. Your accusation of "vindictiveness" is not only baseless, but probably one of the worst examples of projection I've seen in recent memory, when you end your argument with "even if editorially redirecting to a list makes better sense". Sergecross73   msg me  01:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Naah, I just AGF about the serial recreators better than most. Vindictiveness is a characterization, not an accusation, so please don't take offense: deletion, THEN recreating a redirect, THEN protecting that redirect is vindictive, in that deletion is unnecessary and a protected redirect will suffice. If that's you, (and per how I read this AfD, it is you and one other editor) don't fight the label, but rather reconsider whether you should refactor your input to be less vindictive. Individual Pokémon may gain notability, and when someone argues that a not-yet-notable topic with potential future notability should be deleted, rather than just redirected and the redirect protected, there's something going on besides just minimizing disruption: a value judgment that the editors in question should be prevented from ever working on that topic again without begging an admin or recreating it from scratch. So, feel free to refactor the suggestion for deletion before protection of a redirect if you don't want to be vindictive, or decline to refactor if you prefer to leave the statement as is. Jclemens (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon - Merging is unnecessary as the sourced content from the reception section is already present. There is quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBING going on here, as many of the sources being used are extremely passing mentions of the creature, and hardly counts as actual coverage.  Even if the few sources that could be considered significant  are valid, there is still not enough actual content that an independent article is justified, and per WP:NOPAGE, coverage in the article on the broader topic is a valid alternative.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC) hi
 * Redirect per above. This doesn't seem to meet the notability guideline yet, but there is a very clear redirect target (List of generation IV Pokémon) and it is a perfectly legitimate search term. OceanHok (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing is enough. It's not good, it's not even okay. I would go so far as to say it's bad. But it's enough. Mlb96 (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. Sergecross73   msg me  15:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part doesn't make sense? WP:GNG isn't a terribly high bar, a topic can still barely satisfy it even with less-than-stellar sourcing. Mlb96 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Concurrently positing that the sourcing is "not okay", "bad", and that the article should be kept. Sergecross73   msg me  00:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. Honestly, the reception section is showing literally pulling every possible strand of weak, non-significant coverage (two or three sentence mentions from articles on broader topics) to try to make the character seem notable; this is equivalent to when we had editors using "listicles" to support notability. The only real significant coverage of Bidoof is related to its meme nature, and a merge/direct would allow that information to still be mentioned in the List of Pokemon (as well as over at Rickrolling since I know I added that video there way back). --M asem  (t) 13:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or Draftify - the coverage on the meme barely causes it to pass WP:GNG in my eyes. A rewrite is definitely in need, however. If the article gets redirected, I think some more time in draft space, where it was pulled from, could work if someone really wants this to stay. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who pay little attention to the Pokemon IP, the Mudkip one is better established as "culturally significant" when it comes to memes about individual Pokemon due to the coverage it generated, but it looked like the editors who participated in that AfD were not convinced that it helps the parent topic (Mudkip) pass GNG. Haleth (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Bidoof is mostly a meme Pokemon but it's good enough for me to justify keeping an article. It still has some attention for a character from a video game that came out in the mid 2000s. Redirect/merge is also an ok option. --Killuminator (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Vice and Kotaku are probably RS and SIGCOV enough to make this one survive the 2021 Pokemon purge (in which I participated, mostly from the deletionist side). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon. Coverage is insufficient to warrant a standalone article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, as the sourcing is sufficient.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon. 99% of the references are trivial cruft. While the Vice and Kotaku articles might get it up to the standards of notability (it's being generous to say they do), I just don't see what the unique value proposition of an article here is since both sources can be (and already are being) cited in the redirect target. So I don't think two sources alone justify a fork article from the main list. It's not like Bidoof is a super popular or well known Pokemon either. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2021 (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.