Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (4th 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. SNOW keep Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bulbasaur
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

As with other recent Pokemon articles nominated for deletion, the Reception section of Bulbasaur is almost entirely trivial coverage from listicles regurgitated as minor quotes. It fails WP:GNG and does not demonstrate standalone notability. Standards have clearly changed dramatically from when it was a Featured Article, but right now it's essentially pure Wikia/FANDOM material.

There are several articles from gaming sites about Bulbasaur, but they are largely meme-y and more humorous in nature than attempting to dive deep into the Pokemon's design and creation. "Bulbasaur is pretty cool! He does stuff like Vine Whip! Underrated!" ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: It's listed as the very first Pokemon, in the first generation of games - so I think that it is particularly notable. It's my opinion that all Gen 1 starters at least should have their own page, or at least a merged page for all three. Regardless, like you said, there's a lot of trivial information around these pages and some clean-up clearly needs to be done. Kettleonwater (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I will chip in that I don't see the point in a separate article for Venusaur, however. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Being #1 in the Pokedex does not mean it's one of the first Pokemon created. Actually, Rhydon was the first Pokemon ever designed, #112. We don't have an article for Rhydon. The Pokedex number pretty much means nothing. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A recently developed consensus in the AfD's for Pokemon characters indicate that many editors are not in favour of keeping standalone articles which discuss two or more Pokemon which are either interconnected as co-mascots of a particular generation or as an aggregated evolutionary line. The sole remaining article of that nature, Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam, appears to be on the verge of being restructured to just Kadabra. Haleth (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think people are demanding that every Pokemon in those combined articles be able to stand alone as notable. That is very much not the case for Abra, Kadabra and Alakazam, and similarly Ivysaur isn't notable either. (I heavily doubt Venusaur is either, the reception section is barely-there). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - There's definitely a horrible amount of trash in the reception section, but this feels like something that should probably go through discussion analyzing which sources to remove and which sources to keep. After it has been trimmed down to at least acceptable content, then deciding whether the remaining sources are sufficient would be a good idea. TTN (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - As much as I've generally supported the paring down of many of these individual Pokémon articles, this ones going too far. There's a lot of crap to trim out of the reception article (or to streamline at least.) But this ones an iconic character from a long-running series. I refuse to believe that there's not a handful of sources in existence. I'll do some digging if pressed, but this feels right up there with the platinum selling song article nominations because an editor couldn't find a handful of sources online - they're generally snow-kept before the digging even begins. Sergecross73   msg me  12:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "I believe it's iconic" can apply to most Gen 1 Pokemon. Iconic does not necessarily mean notable, however. The article utilizes heavy WP:REFBOMB ing in order to make itself seem more notable than it really is. When one tries to find the actual sources they are mostly left wanting for any depth. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I acknowledged the refbombing, I just don't believe your claim that a cleanup effort would whittle it down to nothing. And I'm not wasting my time looking for sourcehunting for a misguided nomination that's heading for an obvious keep result. Sergecross73   msg me  17:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:BURDEN is on people to prove it's notable, not on the AfD nominator to prove it isn't. You are misunderstanding the process. No matter how "misguided" it is, people must still present evidence it's clearly notable. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of the process, I've been involved in it for over a decade. You're misunderstanding me. If it's a close call, I'll gladly change my tune and do some sourcehunting to persuade people to save the article. I'm just saying I'm not working on saving an article that isn't in any real danger to begin with. Sergecross73   msg me  18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you are admitting that your "keep" vote has no basis in evidence? Why even put forth the vote, then? If I had a hunch something was notable and wasn't sure, I'd usually leave a comment instead, but not put my full weight behind a keep vote with no proof. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that either. If you're going to do such a terrible job trying to paraphrase my stance, don't bother. I'm saying your nomination is so bad that I don't feel it will require extensive source hunting to save it. It lacks common sense. To think that a globally known character that was once named one of the mascots of FIFA 14 isn't going to have a handful of write ups about it is ludicrous. Exceeding bad judgment call on this one, all around. And the current trajectory of the discussion shows it. Sergecross73   msg me  20:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That very much seems like picking and choosing what you want people to hear. According to the actual article: Pikachu has been named Japan’s official mascot for the 2014 World Cup, and will be accompanied by several other notable Pokemon, including Charmander, Bulbasaur, Squirtle, Chespin, and more. Bulbasaur was just one of the numerous side characters with Pikachu being the actual mascot. And this isn't a debate about how notable Pikachu is, since it obviously is. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Im not exactly sure what hair you're trying split here. What exactly is the difference between "mascot character for FIFA" and "characters alongside with mascot character". Like, what exactly do you see mascot characters and characters along for the ride being different in the scale of an event like this? The operative word wasn't "mascot", it was "involvement with a major global sporting event". Sergecross73   msg me  20:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Keep While the article does have a lot of listicles and all the Keep !votes above are WP:SOURCESEXIST or WP:ITSIMPORTANT, these three articles (1, 2, 3) do give it significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Update: I have given this some thought, and am changing my Weak Keep to Keep. I agree with Sergecross73 and (Oinkers42). As for Czar, since there currently is no SNG for fiction (which there should be IMO), the only standard to go by is GNG, which doesn't have anything requiring how the sources cover it at all, just that they cover it. Link20XX (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The first article of the three is the only one you can truly, IMO, argue that it is significant coverage. The second is more of a humor piece "arguing" that Bulbasaur is the best Pokemon because the author says so. The third is more about the @Bulbaganda Twitter feed than about Bulbasaur itself. Just because a Pokemon is numbered #1 in the Pokedex does not imply immediate notability, Pikachu is #25 so number really means very little. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about Pokédex numbering, because I agree it has nothing to do with notability. I guess you are right about the third source but I disagree on the second. It is from a reliable source, and it does give in-depth coverage. Just because it has a less serious tone doesn't change that. Link20XX (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no real argument in the 2nd article. It's literally just goofy humor and makes no sense to put forward as evidence of notability. "If Bulbasaur is a 10/10, every other Pokémon is a solid 9.9/10. Except Exeggcute. A more appropriate name for Exeggcute would be Knockoff R.L. Stine Cover." Like, I can get a humorous article that also actually puts forth an indepth analysis, but this article makes no attempt to, instead joking about how various things that are weaker about Bulbasaur are actually the creators' attempts at giving you philosophical life-lessons. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there anything that states it must have an argument? This is sounding like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Link20XX (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The original starter Pokemon are by far my favorite in the series, so it's absolutely not an issue of IDONTLIKEIT. I don't understand what's such a sin about wanting articles about things you like to actually be a quality article. And that goes hand in hand with passing GNG and being able to get substantive information. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since it appears my comment is being misinterpreted below, I will clarify. I was referring to you and the source, not the Pokémon itself. For the record, Arceus is one of my favorite Pokémon and I tagged it with notability. Link20XX (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd probably enjoy the article as an amusing diversion if I was stumbling upon it while reading the webpage. In a "yeah, seriously, why IS Bulbasaur so underrated"? kind of way. But as a source of serious criticism, used in this context, I think it doesn't pass muster. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep While Wikipedia should probably not become a Pokedex covering Pokemon that have iconic status outside of the franchise seems entirely valid. Artw (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and to me. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, it's not an IDONTLIKEIT issue. Quite the opposite, actually. Besides, ad hominem arguments don't hold any weight when there is no evidence as such. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If original starters were your favorite, you would not have listed Bulbasaur for AfD. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are conflating AfD with "hating" something, which is quite not the case. I can like something and still think that the article on it is poor quality and maybe should not exist on Wikipedia. After all, Bulbapedia does an excellent job, far better than Wikipedia could hope to do on the subject, so it's not like it's eradicating Pokemon from the face of the planet. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, you can tell from the 3 previous nom's of Bulbasaur that the notability has been an issue in the past. In the previous nomination, largely unreliable sources were used to justify keeping it, of the sort that wouldn't be typically used on Wikipedia today ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The first 2 AfD noms, from the early decade of Wikipedia, were clearly malformed or badly made/closed which has no instructive value on the subject's notability. The 3rd one was contentious, but the closer made it clear that deletion was never a viable outcome from that discussion and that a merge and redirect proposal may have more weight as a consensus. Haleth (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of generation I Pokémon. Let's take Link's three sources, which I believe demonstrate an important distinction: significant coverage is whether we have enough quality material to write an article that does the topic justice without regressing to primary sources or original research; significant coverage is not simply invoking the topic's name in the headline. These three sources are about Bulbasaur but say nothing—they offer no original analysis for us to cite in any depth.
 * We cite Bulbasaur has been the best Pokémon all along, one of a series of essays about the legacy of Pokemon Red/Blue, as "Chris Plante of Polygon chose Bulbasaur as the best Pokemon all along" because that's all the article says in its 13 paragraphs. Similar to why we don't use listicles to signal noteworthiness, blog posts about "why a fictional character is 'the best'" have a bad track record for having any meaningful insight worthy of an encyclopedia. The article is jokey and unserious and I hope I don't need to quote it to show why.
 * We cite If You Don't Love Bulbasaur, 'Bulbasaur Propaganda' Might Change Your Mind as "Kotaku recommended to people who don't like Bulbasaur and their propaganda might check out twitter @BulbaGanda for arts, memes, and images to change mind", which again is a great summary of the article and additionally an excellent indicator of content that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. It is a Reddit post masquerading as a news article, offering no analysis beyond "look at these funny memes". There is no additional content here to explain anything about the Reception of Bulbasaur.
 * And Detective Pikachu helped me love a Pokémon I used to hate (i.e., Bulbasaur), cited as, "Polygon described Bulbasaur on Detective Pikachu as “unassuming and sweet,” a creature who makes a “lovable friend.” Again, what content are we meant to cite here to write an article that does justice to the independently notable depth of the topic? There's nothing beyond in-universe impact: That the character's portrayal made her reconsider her bias between starter Pokemon preferences has only incidental and no material impact on the Reception of the character. And that's a generous analysis because the article absolutely did not put it that way.
 * Because this is the best depth of coverage we've got, we're left with text that cobbles together numerous fluffy statements, each imparting little to nothing about the character or its significance. Which is why I'll once again say that if all sources really have to say is that sources say Bulbasaur is iconic as a starter Pokemon and is cute, we can just as easily express the same content more eloquently with a single sentence and group refs within the list article. Significant coverage means not just being "about" the subject but having meaningful analytic substance we can cite. czar  19:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- I think it would be useful to define "meaningful analytic substance" here. Do they have to have a personality or character arc to analyze, discounting obvious exceptions of mascots like Pikachu? Is this an inherent problem with all fictional species articles in your eyes? (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There certainly isn't a guideline requirement under WP:GNG for "meaningful analytic substance" or anything akin to WP:ORGDEPTH for companies as a defining element of significant coverage. We can certainly argue for its inclusion as a requirement for a proposed SNG which specifically covers fictional characters and topics, but until then, it is opinion only. Haleth (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - In less than a minute, I found a pretty lengthy source at https://screenrant.com/pokemon-bulbasaur-facts/ which was just very recently deemed reliable for entertainment subjects per WP:RSP so I'm really having some WP:BEFORE concerns here... Sergecross73   msg me  20:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As per what CZAR said earlier, a listicle like that does not demonstrate any depth of coverage. Most of the entries within it are simply WP:TRIVIA about the anime or video games. One could write a similar article about any of the starters - or heck, any of the original 151 Pokemon. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not just a "listicle entry", every single entry on the listicle is about Bulbasaur. Very different. I don't agree with yours or Czar's hand-waving away of these lengthy sources dedicated entirely to the subjects. You're setting the bar too high. There's enough here to write a short article. Sergecross73   msg me  20:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that people are stretching the definition of listicles to an absurd degree. Listicle is a term to denote an article that is not about the subject about which the source is being used to establish notability. - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this an out-of-season April's Fool joke? If you use search engine, there's more coverage you'll see about Bulbasaur, not all of them are trivial. It seems like this case is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and people are ignoring WP:NEXIST. Anonymous 00:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked proxy. Link20XX (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG as noted above, article could to with rewriting however. Considering how old the character is a lot of the detailed coverage will be buried in old magazines.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Other editors in this discussion have made it clear that WP:BEFORE, WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN has not been taken into consideration. Haleth (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Considering how many sources have been discussed and found, it definitely passes WP:GNG. Statements to the contrary are confusing and seem to take account for the personal opinion of the statement maker on a source over Wikipedia policy. Also, did someone seriously create a proxy to vote on a fictional character article's deletion? (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe that sourcing is sufficient, if not severely outdated. - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons I listed last time this was at AFD. This was a former featured article, linked to on the main page of the Wikipedia.  The Reception and legacy section of the article, shows it gets ample coverage.   D r e a m Focus  23:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that Link's and Serge's sourcing are sufficient to meet GNG. These types of articles are going to mainly be sourced by primary sources (the games or interviews), because they are the most authoritative source for fictional subjects. The sources used for notability sometimes can be sort of shoved into the article, and that's fine. The important part is that they show that Bulbasaur is an iconic character that has the notability for an article. Jumpytoo Talk 00:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Blatantly notable. The most basic of WP:BEFORE searches (or just looking at the references already in the article) easily demonstrates this. Even as somebody who has never played a Pokémon game or watched the television programme this character is instantly recognisable as an icon of modern popular culture that has received extensive coverage from reliable independent sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 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.