Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Hippo


 * 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. ✗ plicit  11:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

King Hippo

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

Character notability highly dubious with the reception made up of trivial mentions from articles unrelated to him, as well as unreliable sources. Does not seem notable enough for a standalone article, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Unlike Super Macho Man, I can see enough discussion on King Hippo to keep his article. Looking at the sources that are already in the article, IGN names him as the 64th top villain in all of video games, and actually discusses the character, which has to count for something, when you consider just how many video games there are. And Kotaku has two articles that discusses him. Beyond that, he seems to be a well-known figure in gaming for his obesity. MoonJet (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 64th best villain does not indicate importance, but even if it did, that mention contains almost no independent commentary, besides calling him "disturbing". It still indicates a lack of SIGCOV, with the sources being cobbled together from slight mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Looks like a borderline case to me. Overall sourcing isn't that great, but there is some discussion which is not trivial. Unreliable sources can simply be removed from prose. More substantial sources, like character analysis from a page in this book, could be considered. I spotted recurring mentions of the character in multiple published books through a Google Book search, but YMMW. Another article which should not have been considered for deletion, when a merge action that is unilateral or negotiated is a viable WP:ATD. Haleth (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, do you have any access to this book? No previews are showing up on Google. MoonJet (talk) 05:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t. But it came up when I did a quick Google Books search and I could see the contents of the relevant page at the time. Haleth (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, with no way to actually check whether that's WP:SIGCOV, it is not really an argument. Still, I did take a browse through Google Books and only found trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The long reception is quite puffed up from many passing mentions. SIGCOV is an issue, but I just don't have the time&will to review this right now. IMHO there's a ton of articles with zero or next to zero reception that we could prune before we tackle this kind of stuff... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguably, articles with inflated sources are more pernicious because it gives people a false sense of what is considered notable by Wikipedia and what isn't. At least when you have articles with no reception/sources it's quite obvious that it falls short and you shouldn't emulate its example. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zxcvbnm Errr, obvious? Looks at the ongoing Megatron discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep per Haleth. I see this as a borderline case, and there is some amount of padding from non-significant coverage here. But I think there are enough quality sources to get this over the hurdle for notability. There is some ambiguity about the misuse of trivial mentions and questionable sources in these types of articles, and it may warrant a wider discussion to get some clarity. But until then, significant coverage in independent reliable sources is supposed to be enough to write an article, even if I'd like to see the meandering padding cleaned up. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2022 (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.