Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucario (2nd 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of generation IV Pokémon. This was a squeaker, but the main problem was the questionable listicles, and other sources. (non-admin closure) JTZegers (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Lucario

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

Article's reception were filled with listicles and such. Most of the sources are about his Smash Bros. reveal and rankings, some of the sources are pretty dead right now. Having won once or twice on Pokemon poll doesn't mean its notable, plus having hard time to find more sigcov per BEFORE. Greenish Pickle!  (🔔) 21:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games,  and Anime and manga.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd argue that what's there is enough to satisfy, though if the discussion leads merge then I'm unopposed to changing my vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon. Not seeing any non-plot summary source there that meets WP:SIGCOV. The extensive research for passing mentions is nonetheless valuable and a merge should be carried out. While many articles like this have issues with stand-alone notability, I feel we don't do enough to merge the valuable content from them into relevant lists :( A problem that can be at least rectified one day if history is preserved (SOFTDELETE). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

write a proper article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Many of the "listicles" do discuss and/or go into a level of detail about the character. WP:SIGCOV explicitly states that a topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The poll mentioned in the article isn't just any fan poll - "In the Pokémon of the Year poll held by The Pokémon Company, Lucario was voted the most popular Pokémon from Diamond and Pearl, receiving 102,259 votes. It was also the second-most popular Pokémon overall." This result was then covered by RS. If that isn't demonstrative of real-world notability, idk what is.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  02:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as WP:ATD. Most coverage is WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. There isn't much to write about the fan poll other than it happened, and it's not enough WP:SIGCOV to
 * Merge Pokemon articles tend to be vulnerable to AfM/AfD as the article's secondary sources are often used to add trivial commentary, especially where listicle-type articles are used to describe a Pokemon as one of the "best", or "cool". The test seems to be whether secondary sources offer a meaningful and independent perspective outside of the work. Unless notable in themselves, I'm not sure that user-based fan polls add substance in establishing notability. The kind of sourcing we are looking for is the IGN source, which seemed to be promising assessment of the impact, but turns out to only be a sentence in another listicle-type article. Contrast with Snorlax where meaningful secondary commentary has talked about the design of the Pokemon and its impact on popular culture. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per others JTZegers (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WDYM "per others". Keep votes were just ignorong policy and assumed every reliable sources are WP:SIGCOV. This vote wouldn't be counted by closing admin.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 02:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)on
 * I meant the Pokemon of the Year poll and the sufficient amount of coverage otherwise. JTZegers (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Lucario won Pokemon of the year, doesn't mean its WP:SIGCOV. It is just like listicles but reliable.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 03:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: A source analysis would be useful at this point. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to have been a giant crusade against Pokemon articles these past few years, but Lucario was literally the central character of a Pokemon movie, so he's at least more noteworthy than say Growlithe or Farfetch'd. There's tons of real world coverage of Lucario within the article itself (    . If some of the sources are unusable now, that can be fixed through editing and not deleting. We don't need an article on every thousand something Pokemon, but noms such as this lean too far the other direction. The issue Wikipedia had with being another Bulbapedia is long gone.— Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Being a popular character, doesn't mean its automatically notable. Those listicle sources you showed and one article that talks about its figurine doesn't contribute WP:GNG.  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 11:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. GNG explicitly says that the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Your assertions that listicles are automatically not SIGCOV have no basis in policy.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  06:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, this might help you know. Notability (video game characters).  Greenish Pickle!   (🔔) 10:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting the above is an essay and not policy; I think I'd qualify it's less that a cited article is a listicle and more that the secondary sources lend themselves to a trivial discussion and evaluation about the subject matter. Lucario has obviously been mentioned across wide sources in some way, but the depth and relevance of those sources as significant coverage is the issue. For instance, of the sources cited above, [1] briefly discusses Lucario only in the context of its appearance in Smash; [2] evaluates Lucario as "iconic", a "personal favorite" and "instant hit", but there is little discussion of why, which lends itself to an interpretation it is trivial coverage; [3]-[4] are purely descriptive of Lucario products; [5] conveys the outcome of the poll but does not mention Lucario at all; and [6] is a primary source that mentions Lucario once in passing.  ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge "Full of listicles" is technically not a valid deletion argument, as listicles are fully admissible as sources, but "full of trivial mentions" is, and that's what describes the sourcing in the article. Listicles are usually trivial coverage and this is no exception, therefore the same issue applies as many fictional subject articles in which the editors assume that any mention, no matter how small, counts towards notability. Most of what I was able to find is simply SEO-style content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge None of the articles listed above constitute significant coverage of the subject.


 * In the case of this example given above:, Lucario isn't even mentioned by the writer at all; the name is only seen once, in passing, on the republished poll results at the bottom of the page.
 * In this example given above:, the source is a listicle of the "top 150(!) Pokemon", each entry only getting 3-5 sentences in what clearly constitutes trivial coverage.
 * In this example:, Lucario is only mentioned in one sentence: "Yes, it's incredibly difficult! Especially [coming] up with a name [that] is universal here, in the U.S. or Europe, such as Pikachu, Dialga, Palkia, and Lucario." Not only is Lucario not the focal point of the interview, they're not even the focal point of the one sentence they appear in.

Lucario might be the main character of a movie or a popular character in a video game, but the sources provided haven't done a good job of showcasing significant coverage. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Selective Merge I've gone through the article and the Reception section seems to be the only section with sources independent of the subject. (An IGN article was cited in the Concept and creation section. However, the article contains only two full sentences about Lucario and is sourced entirely to the Super Smash Bros. official website-hardly an independent source). In the main Reception section, the vast majority of sources consist of listicle grade articles where large number of Pokémon will be included on a list and get only a few sentences of coverage each. The Merchandise sub-section is supported by a few relatively short articles about specific pieces of Lucario merchandise such as Nanoblocks and Gallery figures; there aren't any sources focusing on Lucario merchandise as a larger category. In summation, there is little in-depth coverage of Lucario from sources independent of Nintendo/Game Freak and what independent sources do exist consist mainly of routine Pokémon-related coverage that contains barely more than a trivial mention about Lucario. It could perhaps be argued that Lucario and the hundreds of other Pokémon that have received similar coverage just barely meet notability requirements. However, I think it's preferable to confine most Pokémon to the lists and reserve stand-alone articles for only the most notable Pokémon than it is to create hundreds of articles on debatably notable Pokémon (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). To this end, I think we can cover our bases here by adding a sentence or two about Super Smash Brothers and Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew to Lucario's entry in the List of generation IV Pokémon article and then redirecting this article there. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For those advocating Merge, do you also support the suggestion that the target be List of generation IV Pokémon? Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the best place to put the information. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:25, 8 September 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.