Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felyne


 * 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Nom withdraw with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Felyne

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

There's no reception at all. In fact no indication of any notability and it's been in that state since apparently 2018 since it was created. Absolutely everything in here can fit comfortably in a parent article. WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Creator keep It says that WP:BEFORE came up with nothing, but even the most basic Google search from me came up with significant examples of real-world significance, such as being used by the police in order to promote crime prevention, and a full article on the creation process of Felyne vocalizations. Gizmodo also covered Felynes, describing them as "a staple of the franchise" and "gosh darn adorable" among other reception comments. The idea that there's no indications of notability is simply not true. "Everything can fit comfortably in a parent article" is an invalid argument for an AfD, so WP:WRONGFORUM applies as well. I should add that the current state of an article does not equate to its notability, per WP:NEXIST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also note that I found an additional article on Felynes from Washington Post of all places. Maybe not great on the reception front, but still technically a significant description of them from a sourcing standpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources provided above were considered prior to launching this AfD:
 * The police matter is a promotional event per the company's press release and the character's image is strictly used in that capacity.
 * VG247 is development, but does not offer any reception.
 * The Washington Post article is basically a game guide.
 * The only source I did miss of those was Gizmodo, which offered light reception. That was a mistake on my part. However the argument ath WP:WRONGFORUM applies is wrong, because pointing out an article's subject does not demonstrate a need to be separate from the parent articles is a valid point, and WP:NEXIST is difficult to cite here when the argument is being made that notable sources aren't being provided for this subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:SECONDARY. "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources". Simply being based on a primary source, i.e. a press release, doesn't somehow disqualify a source from being usable.
 * Featuring reception is also not a pre-requisite for a source being reliable and secondary. An article should preferably have some kind of reception to not be indiscriminate, but all sources do not need reception.
 * "Pointing out an article [..] does not demonstrate a need to be separate" is a matter for merge discussions. AfD is for pages that are considered completely unencyclopedic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that the source should be understood as promotion and not the police asking to use their image directly as they asked about a partnership with the Monster Hunter franchise from what was stated. One offers a lot more strength to a subject than another (think like a Rapper mimicking a character out of appreciation vs a company asking them to use the character's image). And like I said with AfDs I'd *rather* be proven wrong and find there's discussion on a subject that can be cited meaningfully, I just didn't find it and was surprised the article hadn't changed much at all since 2018.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per the sources brought up by Zxcvbnm and the arguments they made. The nominator's assertion that WP:BEFORE turned up nothing is incorrect. Haleth (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Point has been raised that this may not be the best avenue for discussion and Merge may be better, and I'm inclined to agree on reflection.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Per sources above. I would very much prefer if the article is improved.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 16:08, 20 July 2023 (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.