Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadabra


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Pokémon Trading Card Game. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Kadabra

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

One of the much older Pokemon articles on here, it's held up entirely by the lawsuit which in all fairness can be summarized briefly. Any discussion that was there is barebones and extremely limited, with the most reaction being to one particular Pokedex entry and in all fairness all the same reaction. WP:BEFORE didn't provide anything else either, and when listicle and extremely brief sources were cleaned out there wasn't anything left. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: Discussion seems to lean towards possibly moving this to Kadabra controversy or at the very least moving the information to Uri Geller's page on here. I think either option would be fine as an alternative.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:39, 28 August 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) 20:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Articles for deletion/Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam - we went over this 2 years ago and everyone decided that Kadabra was the only notable Pokemon there. Stuff like this, this and this are definitive proof it's notable, and whether it's due to a controversy or by its own merits is irrelevant. At most it's a discussion for a potential move to Kadabra controversy, but some page on this should exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least the argument can be made that the controversy is the notable aspect and not the Pokemon itself, but it's still something that can be summarized briefly in a sentence or two. Why would you feel a whole article is necessary?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's been news coverage over decades, so I feel like this is indicative of an unnecessary rush to merge things that may be notable unto themselves. There's not really a specific reason I think it's necessary, I just also don't agree it should be forced into a merge. I think my views are best summed up with WP:NOTPAPER - if it's minor, but it's notable, Wikipedia doesn't have to combine it to "save space" or some such. There's space for most anything. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's still just one singular event, and even then looking at the sources there's not a lot to say. It can be summed up in a single paragraph, and the other aspects of Kadabra as a fictional character have nothing to do with it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If this were before there was a bunch of news coverage about how Geller took back his accusations, I'd probably agree with you. I think that shows WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and importance. The fact that this has been an issue that fans have cared deeply about for 20 years and enough to force a well-known figure to walk something back is unusual for most characters, much less an individual Pokemon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with Zx's argument after some debate. I wouldn't be opposed to a move to a "Kadabra controversy" page, or a potential merge to Geller's own article, but the information here is inherently notable. I feel the focus being on the Pokemon may be a bit misplaced, given the focus on the controversy more than anything else. Kadabra did have some controversy besides that, but I don't know if it's enough to merit separation.
 * As an aside, I went searching for additional sources a while back and found these:
 * It's a Dark World - Google Books
 * These are the creepiest Pokemon to ever exist - WIN.gg
 * But they're admittedly rather iffy, and I don't know if that's even close to enough to help the article substantially. If anyone performs a search and finds anything not in the article, then it might help its case. Regardless, I'm willing to change my vote depending on how the discussion goes, but for now I'll concur with a Weak Keep vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking into it, win.gg appears to not be listed on WP:VG/RS; however, my observation is that it does not appear to have an editorial policy, and the staff's credentials are not evident. I would contend that it is almost certainly not reliable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a very iffy source, but I felt it would be good to at least reference its existence just in case. Doesn't seem like it'll be too handy now, though. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per as hashed out 2 years ago and determined notable by standards that have not appreciably changed since. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. Kadabra is notable for a single event. I also find that a "Kadabra controversy" article would run afoul of recent decisions regarding controversy articles. For something that can easily be summed up in a few sentences - "[Whomever got sued] was sued by Uri Geller for allegedly stealing his spoon bending as part of creating the design for Kadabra. This led to Kadabra not being featured in the Pokémon Trading Card Game for years in order to avoid controversy. Geller ultimately gave permission for Nintendo to resume printing of the card after Pokémon fan comments convinced him to do so." The article relies exclusively on this event to assert notability; the concept and creation section's only creation info is that Kadabra once had a different name, and the rest of the Reception has nothing of note. It's either listicles that all say the same thing, a non-notable and unverified instance of a preacher calling out Kadabra as Satanic, and additional details tied to the Geller case. Are we truly saying that a Pokémon is notable solely based on a single event? It seems to me like an extremely low bar for notability at that rate. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep consensus was to keep 2 years ago and that Kadabra is especially notable of the 3 Pokemon included in that AFD. Not much has changed since then. FYI the nominator blanked large parts of the reception section prior to nominating it for deletion. While some of the removal was fair enough, I've restored the sourcing which I believe to be more than a "trivial mention" which is the litmus test used for WP:SIGCOV. As part of the blanking rationale it was said that listicles can't be used. I believe that as long as their is some level of discussion about the character a listicle is fine to include per SIGCOV which states the article subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". This is notwithstanding that SIGCOV is purely a notability guideline and does not dictate MOS, i.e. article content.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  08:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now hold on, I outright stated at the beginning I removed sources that were mostly trivial or unusable, and you restored two (2): one is an Inverse article repeating the "kid can turn into Kadabra is creepy!" sentiment in the very same manner as two of the previous entries, and the other is ScreenRant which is doing exactly the same thing, and per WP:VG/S shouldn't be used for notability more often than not. With [12] and [13] saying the same thing, are we really arguing repeated lists commenting about the same single Pokedex entry makes it notable? Previous AfDs on this same sort of subject have shown that doesn't hold much water.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Point taken re ScreenRant (though I do question whether WP:VG has the power to override a WP:RSN discussion that Screen Rant is usable for everything except controversial statements in BLPs. I do not agree with your other point though. Surely multiple reliable sources independently saying the same thing about something makes said thing more notable, not less.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  02:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's more a case of all the sources saying exactly the same sentiment on exactly the same thing, and it doesn't help "disturbing pokedex entry lists" are to Pokemon what "Top 10 Hotties lists" are to female video game characters when it comes to media outlets. If they said different things (especially about different entries) I would agree but they could easily just be bulletpoint chained behind one encompassing ref.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment After going through the reception and cleaning it up, I found multiple cases where the text was somewhat padded, as well as some text that was not true to what was written in the source. Aside from the Geller sources, which are easily summed up in a single paragraph, you have a preacher whose criticisms of Kadabra were reported on by only one newspaper; a handful of sources reacting to Pokedex entries and making roughly the same commentary; and a user poll. I've not yet looked into the sources provided in the AfD, however. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Lawsuits section of Uri Geller. There have been several AfD nominations for Pokemon entries recently. In terms of notability, the consensus for these sort of determinations seems to be whether there are independent and reliable sources that offer some perspective about the Pokemon external to the work, often its design or reception. Sources with trivial reception (i.e. listicles stating it's the best, it's "scary", or it's "cool") tend not to be seen as a strong case for notability, which makes up most of this article's 'Reception' section. I'm not sure this is a Snorlax-type article where anything significant is being said in independent sources about Kadabra itself, how it was conceived, what impact it has had on popular culture, and anything in-depth about its reception. The sourcing is generally poor. Arguments that the AfD has already been considered should note the discussion was for Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam, which had three times the sources of the current article. In this case, I think the only thing establishing notability is the Geller controversy, which does seem to have engendered some mainstream attention, such as People, CBS, and BBC, but this is an unusual case where the notability of the subject matter is being argued for its controversy revolving around someone else. Given Geller's litigious reputation and coverage in his article, that episode is appropriate to cover there. Without that section, I think the article would not be notable in its current state. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge per Cukie Gherkin. Only the lawsuit section has anything substantial and independent. I removed the line about the preacher taking issue with it as WP:UNDUE. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge to Pokemon Trading Card Game, where the relevant controversy can be covered. If Kadabra were a BLP, this would be a BLP1E which wouldn’t necessarily require an article on its own. That aside, that’s all that’s really noteworthy about Kadabra, and putting it in the card game article highlights its impact there.  Red Phoenix  talk  17:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Lawsuits section of Uri Geller or Pokemon Trading Card Game.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 18:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge per above, as there is good information in lawsuits but not needed as an article on it's own. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge a lot of the coverage isn't really about this Pokemon, and there is a better target to cover it. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 30 August 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.