Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coco Bandicoot


 * 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 List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Consensus here appears to be that this secondary character lacks enough significant coverage to merit a separate article. The article remains available in the history if there is further verifiable information that should be merged. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Coco Bandicoot

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject lacks the significant coverage needed to justify notability; the article's reception section consists primarily of passing mentions and sources that don't pertain specifically to the subject's characterization, actor performance, and/or impact on popular culture. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisted after undoing a non-admin early closure per Deletion review/Log/2022 May 15. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect to List of Crash Bandicoot characters as it was previously. The justification to recreate the article just wasn't backed up by WP:RS. The character is worth a mention in a list of characters but basically all the reception are passing mentions of the character and not WP:SIGCOV; there is some heavy WP:REFBOMBing going on. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore Redirect - per two arguments above. Significant coverage just isn't there - it's all cherry-picked passing mentions, often of no real substance. Sergecross73   msg me  18:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore the Redirect per above. There's not much argument to add, SIGCOV isn't there, passing mentions. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect per nom. OceanHok (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: First of all, I beg to differ on the "passing mention" claims. Let's look over some of the sources I've added since restoring the article:


 * https://gamerant.com/crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy-coco-playable/ - An entire article about her and her playable role in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy.
 * https://www.thegamer.com/coco-bandicoots-design-in-crash-bandicoot-on-the-run-burns-my-eyes/ - Another article devoted to her, much longer than the previous one. This discusses her design.
 * https://www.thegamer.com/crash-bandicoot-coco-awesome-fan-art/ - Yet another article devoted to her. While it lists fan art of her, the article also discusses her personality in the games.
 * https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/06/15/e3-2017-why-coco-is-playable-in-crash-bandicoot-n-sane-trilogy - This discusses why she is playable in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy.
 * https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/04/26/crash-bandicoot-the-wrath-of-cortex-review - Well, okay, I didn't really add this one, since it was already in there prior to the initial merge. But for a review of a game, it goes a bit into Coco beyond a passing mention.


 * Yes, some of the sources are passing mentions, but not all of them are. There could be more out there too. If find any, I'll add them in here.


 * I can understand why the article was initially merge back in 2011. There was barely any sources discussing Coco back then. However, more have since popped up, thanks to her playable roles in Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy and Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time, addressing the very reason it was merged in the first place. This passes WP:GNG and WP:INU, which do not require "the subject's characterization, actor performance, and/or impact on popular culture" in reliable sources. The main purpose of INU is to avoid WP:PLOT articles, and Coco does that through the creation and reception sections. This goes beyond Wikia quality.


 * Besides, Coco is clearly an important character in the Crash Bandicoot series, pretty much being the deuteragonist. I think the reader would benefit from Coco having her own article more than being confined to a list with a bunch of less important characters, which goes more into detail than a list article could. MoonJet (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first three sources are situational-bordering-on-unreliable, per WP:VG/S discussions. The first IGN article mentions her inclusion in the game and a little of how they worked her in, but says almost nothing about her character. The second IGN article features a single paragraph which basically says nothing but "Not as good as Crash". This is not significant in-depth coverage. This will be my only reply, as the long long long one-sided discussion at Amy Rose about very similar sources and passing mentions suggests that you won't change your stance. -- ferret (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The first three are listed as situational sources, yes, but keep in mind that I'm only citing them for opinion pieces, not facts. Furthermore, it says Game Rant is fine to cite at non-BLP articles and for things that are not controversial claims. And the first TheGamer source was published after August 2020. WP:VG/S says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." MoonJet (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As you've been told in prior discussions, a combination of passing mentions and fringe churnalism sources isn't a convincing case for notability. It's quite frankly getting a bit disruptive that we keep having to have these conversations because you're so obviously setting the standards far below where the community generally does. Sergecross73   msg me   Sergecross73   msg me  12:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling something "churmalism" just strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You might consider them "churnalism," but others may not. If I'm setting the standards "far below where the community generally does," then maybe the problem is that the project is stricter than it should be. Never mind that fact the project literally states "Video game-related articles are considered notable by this project if they pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines." on the project page. MoonJet (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See also WP:VG/S description of TheGamer: News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Several editorial staff have bylines highlighting their experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247. Content published prior to August 2020 should be handled with care, particularly listicles that have little news or reporting significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I already discussed this in reply to Ferret, but:
 * 1. I am citing them for opinion pieces, not facts. See WP:RSOPINION.
 * 2. One of the sources from TheGamer I cited in here was published after August 2020. MoonJet (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Youre cherry-picking words. Churnalism is mine. But descriptors like iffy/fringe/not the best - these are pretty generally accepted. If a "The Gamer" source with a headline of "Look at the fan art" is among your strongest evidence for GNG satisfying sourcing, you're reallllllly reaching. I'm just surprised you're trying this so quickly after the community came to a clear consensus that your Amy Rose article had insufficient sourcing for its own article. This is the same sort of thing. Sergecross73  msg me  14:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter what the headline is? "Reaching?" No, I'm just gathering up some sources that discuss her that I've found, and TheGamer is acceptable for opinions, especially those posted after August 2020. Also consider the purpose behind GNG. If there's enough to write an article beyond a stub, it is presumably notable.
 * I know about the Amy Rose thing, but I was hoping to get a different result for Coco Bandicoot, really.
 * I plan to have another discussion on Amy Rose, by the way, as I've since found more sourcing for her since that consensus. MoonJet (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, this is your response when both the Amy Rose and this discussion (so far) are unanimously against you? You're going to get yourself into WP:IDHT trouble acting like this. Sergecross73   msg me  14:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment- can we try to focus this discussion on Coco Bandicoot and not User:MoonJet or the potential of an Amy Rose article? (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying applies to here at this AFD all the same. Sergecross73   msg me  21:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Prominent, sure; important, no. As far as gameplay goes, you could remove her playability outright and nothing would fundamentally change, and the games' marketing campaigns have clearly felt no need to prop her up to Crash's level. The series' central antagonist Cortex teaming up with Crash for one game was the primary marketing point of Crash Twinsanity, thus prodding reviewers toward analyzing Cortex as a character, but could the same ever have been said for Coco? As it stands, she's borderline window dressing presented only as an option for players who desperately need a playable character of the opposite sex, despite its lack of effect. And even then, she's not engaging enough as a personality for reviewers to devote the same kind of commentary they did to Cortex in Twinsanity. The games are not called Crash and Coco or Super Bandicoot Sibs, she's certainly not getting a headlining game any time soon, and fans aren't crazy enough about her to make so much as a ripple, so if she's not so essential, why would anyone pay any mind? Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom and others. While it initially looks like there are a lot of sources being included, this really seems to be a case of WP:REFBOMBing, as most of them are articles or reviews on the games she appeared in as a whole, that just mention her briefly as part of the review. Even most of the articles that are supposedly "about" her are simple statements of "Coco is playable in this game". As mentioned by Sergecross73 above, when the strongest actual source focused on the character is just a collection of fanart, that is not evidence that the character received enough significant coverage to justify an independent article, rather than being covered on the main character page for the franchise. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't have full access to this source, but this seems to discuss Coco too: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/135485650000600404


 * If any of you have full access to this, please let me know. MoonJet (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just going by the headline, it looks like it's about female gamers and gaming culture as a whole, not specifically about the character. Access or no, this still doesn't advance your case. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be "specifically" about the character, just that its significant coverage. (WP:GNG explicitly states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) But either way, I don't have access to that to tell if it is or not. MoonJet (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've read the study. Coco has less than two sentences of mention, in context of a child developer who wanted to use Coco as a playable character in her own Crash game (I.e. doing what later happened). The character itself is not discussed or even described beyond "appears in cutscenes". -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect per nom and others. Reyk YO! 04:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect North8000 (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Restore Redirect – per the above discussion.  Atsme 💬 📧 05:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just found a source that talks about Coco in detail and about her "gender bias" and that kind of stuff (https://www.nymgamer.com/?p=17216) It's a big page too. Going by their about page (https://www.nymgamer.com/?page_id=2), the place seems to be reliable. I'll tag some people in here that previously voted for some thoughts.   . MoonJet (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is at all a reliable source. It's never been cited by other reputable gaming-related sources as far as I recall, or even within Wikipedia from what I can see. Just seems like another glorified blog. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Their about page says this and I quote: "Over the years, NYMGamer’s slate of writers has featured professors, writers, and professionals from a variety of industries, but the focus has always been the same: unpacking games from a feminist perspective, and having a good time while we’re at it.
 * In 2015, we began planning a careful shift to a peer-reviewed middle-state publication offering a dedicated space to feminist games studies. Our first issue debuted in April 2018, and while we will continue to offer blog content, along with our regular podcast, the journal aims to create space for peer-reviewed articles on feminist games scholarship, including textual engagement, criticism, theory, and research, as well as multimedia presentations, as well as critical book and game reviews." MoonJet (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Such a statement doesn't mean anything unless it cites specifics, and given how little mention this site has gotten from others, I'm not convinced that these "professors, writers, and professionals" could have been all that credible or influential. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it actually has been cited by Game Informer, another reputable gaming source. See here: https://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/08/23/analysis-two-reasons-why-playable-female-characters-are-here-to-stay.aspx MoonJet (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A single point on a graph doesn't lend prestige. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But the point is, MoonJet demonstrated that at least one reliable source has cited them for their research, in response to a sweeping claim that there is none who do. Their first peer-reviewed publication in 2018 had the involvement of Adrienne Shaw, a published academic who researches video games. I also found two other Wikipedia pages which have cited NYM Gamer as sources: Fran (Final Fantasy), a GA, and Zoë Quinn. I understand why other editors would still consider the sigcov threshold to not be met because we don't have enough sources, but you have not provided a convincing argument that we should disregard this source entirely due to alleged unreliability other then mere opinion. Haleth (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This cherry picking of pings is concerning. I actually believe this could potentially be treated as a reliable source, but even then, that makes it the only in-depth source uncovered so far, so doesn't change the status quo. Additionally, the particular author does not appear on the staff page, instead appearing to be a guest or freelance submission, which might kick out the reliableness. Unfortunately the site does not clearly label their blog content half, which makes it difficult to vet. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, there's TheGamer and GameRant sources too. Even if you want to discount the fan art article, there's still the other two. Though, I know you are leery on those due to them being situational sources, but I like I mentioned, they are fine for non-BLPs and non-exceptional claims, especially for opinion pieces.
 * Anyway, while the author is not on the staff page, it doesn't look like a site where just anyone can write for. Also, her Linkedin page says she has experience in Purdue University, which is where the top editors of that site are from. MoonJet (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - replying to ping. Many game characters arguably still reside in a niche market or they may be considered subordinates to a globally notable and highly popular main character, as is the case with Coco as demonstrated here. I must add that siblings of notable game characters do not automatically inherit that notability, and this is such a case. I'm not saying that all game characters must reach the level of global notability as did Pac-Man and Mario Bros. but they must reach the minimum requirements set forth in WP:GNG. At this time, Coco fails to meet those requirements. Perhaps that will change over time, but right now we have to consider NOTCRYSTALBALL, and until N is met, a redirect is the way to go.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * True, notability is not inherented. But you don't you think the NYM Gamer, TheGamer (which there's two of) and GameRant sources add up the minimal notability guidelines? Altogether, that's at least four sources of significant coverage (arguably more than that), more than the recommended mininum of three sources. Well, in Wikipedia's terms, non-trivial. Short doesn't necessarily equal trivial, as this page says. We should also consider why notability is a thing. I would argue there's easily enough here to write an encyclopedic article beyond a stub. MoonJet (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * MJ - NYM Gamer began as a blog, but their "About" section states: In 2015, we began planning a careful shift to a peer-reviewed middle-state publication offering a dedicated space to feminist games studies. Then when you read Editors and Staff, we're not talking about a peer reviewed scientific journal, ok? You might say it's a bit of an advocacy or maybe not - either way, it's not quite what they paint themselves to be. Now look at The Gamer - editor-in-chief Stacey Henley is arguably famous but fame is not the same thing as notability. What are her encyclopedic/academic credentials? She appears to be an advocate for women's rights - we could certainly use her talents on WP - but does the editorial staff at The Gamer really qualify as experts for inclusion of academic/encyclopedic content relative to the study of feminism? The sources are not exactly what WP would consider scientific, academic in the same light as high quality WP:MEDRS. I shudder to think WP is going to be the home of every game character that's trending now because they were mentioned or written about in those 4 sources - which of course have their own agendas relative to the gaming industry; consider WP:NTEMP.  I have no doubt that the editorial staff does their best to maintain credibility despite using outlets like Reddit, Twitter, YouTube, etc in their pool of sources. To keep things in perspective, we're talking about video games; technology comes and goes with the wind. Where does their money come from? Are they truly independent? I think those are questions that need closer study.  Atsme  💬 📧 21:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, current consensus at WP:VG/RS is that TheGamer is reliable; though content posted before August 2020 is to be approached with caution. I mean, there's so many characters that do not have an article. Looking at the Crash series, the only other characters with articles are Crash himself and Dr. Cortex. It certainly wouldn't hurt for Coco to have one too.
 * Also, keep in mind I'm not citing TheGamer as academic source. It's NYM Gamer I'm citing as an academic source. MoonJet (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to correct you there. NYM Gamer is a website run by an editorial board, with some of its members being published academics (e.g. Mia Consalvo and Adrienne Shaw) or professional critics (Yussef Cole). The article you cited is a blog-style article, which is essentially on the same tier as typical features published by Kotaku and Polygon. It clearly has been through an editorial process, but it is not an academic source just because the editors in question may be academics. The actual academic journal itself is here, of which only two issues have been published at the time of writing. Haleth (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. NYM Gamer is probably the best source that has turned up in this discussion for the topic to date.The employment status of the article's author is not really relevant as long as the website or publication that publishes it demonstrates that it has an editorial apparatus in place where submitted articles must be approved by editors prior to publication. As for format, websites like Kotaku and Polygon are special interest blogs run by professional staff writers and editors. I understand why consensus for the article to be redirected isn't inclined to change because there aren't more sources of this calibre, but I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that the article can still be improved by sources yet to be discovered or cited. When the NYM Gamer source is assessed in conjunction with the quoted articles from TheGamer and GameRant, there is enough coverage to write a short article in my view. PS: MoonJet should have pinged all of the other editors who were involved in the discussion as well, like, and . Haleth (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I wasn't pinged because he knows this wouldn't move the needle for me. Sergecross73   msg me  14:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I was pinged, and it does not move the needle for me either. I still fully advocate Redirecting and covering the character on the main character list for the series. Rorshacma (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was under the assumption certain editors were watching this discussion as it was. It seems Cat's Tuxedo and Ferret has anyway. I must note that I wasn't for sure whether it would needle Sergecross' stance or not. Though, to be fair, maybe I should have pinged everyone in here.
 * Also, I don't know if this is reliable (though, they seem to be affiliated with Siliconera and Destructoid) but this source lists Coco among the 10 "great" female characters in video games: https://www.pcinvasion.com/10-great-female-video-game-characters/
 * They give explanation, and comments on her levels in Crash 3: Warped and the politicism around her. On its own, I agree that it wouldn't establish notability for her, but I do think it establishes notability for her even more so with the NYM Gamer, TheGamer and GameRant sources than without that source. After all, we must also consider the principles on why notability is a thing, like I said above. MoonJet (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Redirect. This isn't that complicated. "King's redesign of Coco Bandicoot for Crash Bandicoot: On The Run burned my eyes more than shampoo being squirted into them. It makes you scream bloody murder because someone poured some water into the bottle and mixed it up without your knowledge ..." This is not a suitable source for an encyclopedia. The video game space has so many mainstream news sources that cover so many aspects of this major franchise yet our discussion above stretches far into unreliable and opinion sources. It's clear that this character is not covered widely as independent from the ensemble of other characters in the series. So cover it in the ensemble article: List of Crash Bandicoot characters. czar  14:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)