Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popplio


 * 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 no consensus. Opinions are evenly divided between keep and merge/redirect. Because this shows that deletion is not a realistic prospect, I suggest that any follow-up discussion take the form of a merger proposal on the article's talk page rather than a second AfD.  Sandstein  07:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Popplio

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable Pokémon species, fails WP:GNG. Reception section has been WP:REFBOMBed with many, non-significant sources and brief mentions in other articles that do not indicate real notability. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  16:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is a starter in the games and this species's reception is particularly notable. What more notability does Wikipedia staff want? Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Leanne Sepulveda: being a starter Pokémon has never been enough reason for a stand alone article; for instance, Cyndaquil, Totodile, Torchic, Turtwig, etc. do not have individual articles. And I myself am not a member of the "Wikipedia staff", I am just another editor like you. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  00:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon With such insightful commentary as "Megan Farokhmanesh of The Verge described Popplio as "very ugly"", it surely examines Popplio's impact on society. Not. This does not demonstrate any notability beyond the very trivial observations of a few critics, and fails WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep: The article in its present state is definitely not well written, and I do notice that in mainstream video game journalism, a lot of irreverent humor is used in discussions about the Pokemon franchise. That said, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still not a ground for deletion per guideline or policy. This nomination is not properly constructed and does not advocate a valid ground for deletion per WP:GNG with a proper source analysis, and not liking the tone of what a reliable source has to say about the subject is certainly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is it necessary for Wikipedia to host another standalone Pokemon article? Probably unnecessary, but then this is verging on an "other stuff exists" argument. Do we need to delete an article about a Pokemon character that has sources like Kotaku, Polygon, Digital Spy, and The Verge (which are not "non-significant sources" by the way) which are specifically devoted to discussing the character in non-trivial detail and not as part of a list, in other words WP:SIGCOV? No, because article content, however poor, does not determine notability. As noted by an editor in another discussion, a character does not need to be "important to the world" to be notable. And per WP:NEXIST, I found three additional reliable sources, plus one more from Kotaku, which specifically critiqued the character: Techradar, Nintendo World Report, Paste Magazine. Haleth (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Haleth: I can asure your that my nomination is not a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (I myself love Primarina). The Appearances section consists of a list of video games in which Popplio appear (as does the majority of Pokémon introduced in Gen VII), and minor appearances in other media. The reception section indeed has reliable secondary sources, but these sources cover Popplio in a superficial way, with just random mentions. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  00:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Lord Opeth, I was suggesting that your AfD is motivated by your disapproval over the contents of the article, as opposed to the subject itself. I find that for the purposes of AfD and assessing notability, most editors disregard the volume of appearances in the body of fictional works a character has appeared in. Consensus seem to focus on the development and reception sections as the key points of contention or scrutiny. In this case, an aggregate of at least 7 distinct reliable sources which specifically discuss the divisive reception over the character is objectively not a form of random mention, the playful or humorous tones notwithstanding (Pokemon started off as a media franchise for consumption by children afterall). Haleth (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have brought this discussion to the attention of Article Rescue Squadron since consensus appears to be unclear so far. Haleth (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

*Redirect and Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon. Like I said before, very few Pokémon are notable for Wikipedia articles.LifelongLynx (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon Let's keep the bar high for Pokemon species, please...there are over 800+ species. The Characteristics and Appearances sections can be drafted up for almost any character. Reception section is fluffed up with excessive quotes and repeating the same points over and over. When you cut out the fat, the only meaningful coverage seems to be the articles comparing Popplio to the other starters of that gen. That matter would be better discussed within context at Pokémon Sun and Moon. TarkusAB talk / contrib 15:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely passes WP:GNG with the sources found and the sources in the article. I do not get this deletion, if it meets WP:GNG, it meets WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Haleth. Those sources do give significant coverage of the Pokémon, and I would say enough to meet WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Coverage on Popplio definitely exists, but that's the best that can be said about it. There's not really much about the character to go indepth on besides spouting off clickbaity material about how cool or uncool it looks. Not enough to fulfill notability requirements without really reaching. There's also no real argument as to why Popplio should have a page over other Pokemon of its ilk.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is sustained coverage about the character's divisive reception. The article in its present state may not be well-written, but the aggregate sourcing following a read paints a different picture, suggesting there is significant discussion among commentators and among players about the perceived dip in quality of design standards, something that most other Pokemon characters simply don't have. Sine critical commentary about a character's design and appearance is a fundamental part of their reception, that satisfies WP:GNG as far as I am concerned. Haleth (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per Zxcvbnm. The sources offer WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs at best, and could be summarized as "fans didn't like it" at a more notable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Sources are not particularly substantial. They're not really enough to meet WP:GNG at this time .TTN (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of generation VII Pokémon. Nothing worth merging. Reviewing the WP:THREE cited above: Plush Pokémon Should Not Be $80 And Make Me Cry, The NWR Pokemon Sun and Moon Starter Debate - The Case For Popplio, The Power of Helplessness: Why Everybody Loves Mimikyu and Hates Popplio are the epitome of hot take, unsubstantial soft news—none are suitable for general citation in an encyclopedia. If this is the best we've got, they underscore why these nominations should be uncontroversial redirects. czar  04:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While we are all entitled to our opinions on whether the coverage is substantial or otherwise, even though no source analysis of the existing cited sources has been given, there is certainly no guideline or policy on Wikipedia which prohibits the citation and use of "soft news" on any topics within a generalist encyclopedia that uses crowdfunded user-generated content. Input from numerous editors here confirms as much as that articles which contains elements of "hot takes and unsubstantial news" are not by themselves problematic. They should not be presented as fact in Wikivoice, but in a neutral manner as WP:RSOPINION, though that is an editorial as opposed to a notability concern. Our only concern in this regard should only be whether the source in question is reliable and independent from the subject. Is it the case that sources you questioned fail WP:V, lack an editorial oversight, or that the articles themselves only consist of a single sentence or paragraph like this gem? WP:THREE is also not a vetted guideline; if it is merely meant to be instructive, then I should point out that some editors and even one established guideline believe two distinct sources about the topic would suffice, others may require five, ten or even way more. Haleth (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but this isn't a matter of "opinion". We have an established precedent that promotional, low-quality, clickbait, and listicle sources do not somehow compose significant coverage simply for mentioning the character: WP:ROSE, WP:KLEFKI, for starters. The quality of the source absolutely matters. Video game AfDs are a walled garden. Non-video game AfD regulars tear these sources apart all day long. czar  05:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the analysis of the outcome for WP:ROSENBERG then, which is the result of a VG project-wide consensus 6 years ago. There are 3 articles by Kotaku, 2 from Polygon, and the rest, one each from Digital Spy, The Verge, Techradar, Nintendo World Report, and Paste Magazine. Almost all of them are either full-length articles which specifically discuss the character directly and in detail, or presented as substantial comparisons of the reception of its design and attributes to that of another contemporary character which fulfills the requirement of non-trivial coverage, which is more than a trivial mention but does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Quoting the closer from WP:ROSENBERG, none of the articles I brought up talk about the subject in "just a single paragraph, in a list of such paragraphs", and the article is certainly not "almost completely in-universe, failing WP:PLOT". Out of universe commentary as highlighted by the sources I've mentioned is a manifestation of ​the character's effect on the world, and your opinion that all that commentary is trite and vapid in tone, while probably justifiable from a certain perspective, is an irrelevant concern under the notability guidelines, because that is just opinion based on subjective importance which anyone can espouse about anything. I am not sure why a redirect to WP:KLEFKI even exists or brought up here as it provides no meaningful instructive precedent to this discussion, especially when some of the recent Pokemon AfD's are not closed in the exact same manner.


 * Even if we are both in agreement that the advice from WP:ROSENBERG is useful, where up to three criteria is suggested by the closer as the basis for a standalone article, it doesn't change the fact that it is not a widely cited precedent like WP:GNG or even WP:NFICTION in AfD discussions, so the so-called Rosenberg resolution probably fits into the definition of a local consensus within a walled garden you just described. Per consensus from the site-wide RfC on Screen Rant, a widely used source which is one of the "low-quality, clickbait, and listicle" sources you deride, the closer determined that it is a "marginally reliable" source, except for BLP articles, which is adequate and reliable enough for other uses. I am sure that includes demonstrating notability for pop culture topics, provided the article does not only mention the subject in passing. I should point out then that all of the sites I emphasized are seen as of a higher quality compared to ScreenRant by other editors, certainly the emerging consensus here indicate that most other editors do not believe there is anything demonstrably unreliable or problematic with sites that use "hot takes" or post "unsubstantial soft news", to the point of being unsuitable for general citation in an encyclopedia as WP:RSOPINION. In the absence of support from guidelines, policy, and a wider consensus local (VG project) or otherwise (Reliable Sources Noticeboard) for your position regarding the quality of coverage for pop culture topics and the subjective importance of topics of a certain nature, yes, it is a matter of opinion. Haleth (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't complicated. If a minor fictional character doesn't have enough specialized, non-promotional coverage to escape the orbit of its originating work of fiction, then we cover it in a character list or not at all. That precedent doesn't need to be enshrined in a formal guideline to be acknowledged as the working consensus. WP:NOTBURO czar  16:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is not vetted into a formal guideline or widely discussed outside of select AfD's about video game characters, then it is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Wikipedia's policy on level of consensus is quite clear that . The RfC for Screen Rant is community consensus on a wider scale. My interpretation is a word for word reading of the closer's finding from WP:ROSENBERG since you brought it up for our consideration, with the more substantial sources highlighted in this discussion judged against it. It has nothing to do with bureaucracy. Haleth (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources demonstrated by Haleth, enough to scrape an article for GNG / NEXIST together.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 21:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak merge to List of generation VII Pokémon. The article in Kotaku about plushie doesn't seem very relevant. This doesn't seem very in depth, it's a bloggish rant about some Pokemon design the article's author doesn't like, and doesn't even focus on Popplio that much - it rants about several designs. How does this type of coverage help us? Minor Internet-era author ranted at a minor outlet in passing about this entity? Ugh. Is the same but even more niche of an outlet (this time the author seems to like the design?). And this is more like the first one but better written. Ok, it seems a few people commented about his design, but I am not convinced the source quality is enough here and I'd recommend merge, while preserving the better part of the reception. All that said, this is better than most other Pokemons which get nothing but how to game-related guides, but frankly, to make this notable, I'd want to see coverage that goes beyond few ranting fans who managed to get few bucks for getting their hack writing published on a niche gaming portal. If the controversy about its design or the design itself gets written up by mainstream media or academics, then I'd vote keep. For now, I think this doesn't meet WP:GNG. With the proliferation of low quality online commentary about virtually anything, a few low quality rants should not be enough to meet GNG. PS. I read the discussion above now and it seems I am echoing User:Czar.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that countless Pokemon had their design criticized by someone or another, so that alone is WP:MILL. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't think it's the strongest Pokémon article, but I do not think that the discussion about Popplio in RSes is trivial. There are plenty of sources that exist that center specifically about Popplio. - Whadup, it&#39;s ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge all of the article's contents to some other suitable destination - I have no idea who or what this character is, but even a brief WP:BEFORE search shows significant coverage from reliable independent sources. I know that some people would prefer that Wikipedia editors dedicated their time to writing articles on serious subjects rather than articles about fictional cartoon animals, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete articles on subjects which pass WP:GNG. My lack of familiarity with the subject means that I don't know whether this would warrant its own article from a WP:PAGEDECIDE perspective, but given the massive scope of Pokémon's popularity I find it quite easy to believe that most of its characters would at the very least warrant sizable sections within articles regarding closely related subjects in the franchise, if not their own standalone articles. There's simply too much coverage from reliable independent sources at this point. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I feel like every Pokemon article was scrutinized too much, but per WP:ATD and WP:NEXIST, clearly notable. 90.252.172.138 (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon - Despite the copious amount of sources of vastly varying quality that were WP:REFBOMBed in the Reception section, the actual content of those sources pretty much consists of the information that "Some people didn't like the design and some people did".  That single piece of information can easily be included in the main list of Pokemon for that generation, and does not require an entire article to be split out from it, per WP:NOPAGE.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep as no consensus I am not sure if this is my second vote or like that but I see everyone divided. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of media mentions, and per points already mentioned above. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as compromise to deletion. The WP:GNG tells us that "mentions" are not enough, as per WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. It's frustrating to see editors actively cheering for a lack of consensus. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and the whole project is built on our ability to form WP:CONSENSUS and find common ground. Merging allows us to preserve what little valid content there is here, and potentially expand it if coverage should ever change due to new events. No consensus just guarantees that these disputes will continue across multiple AFDs. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assessment that a merge close as opposed to a declaration of no consensus will stop disputes from continuing across multiple AfD's. There have been countless cases where editors have started AfD's over topics which have been voted as keep at least once in the past, and the outcome of these AfD's are often never the same. There are also valid avenues for people who are dissatisfied with a specific outcome like deletion reviews. A no consensus outcome is just as valid as any other outcome, and unfortunately, it's not our place to tell other editors what not to do or not to believe as long as they are not in direct violation of site policies like being incivil. In any event, I think it's a bad call to address the potential closer directly and tell them how to close it. What this discussion does need is someone to just act and close it asap as it is clearly going nowhere at this point in time. Haleth (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: before this point the AfD was not transcluded on a daily log as per the AfD process. I have transcluded it on today's log and it can be closed in seven days. The above comments must have come from people who saw the AfD template on the article or people who saw the notifications to the video games Wikiproject or the Article Rescue Squadron.  Hut 8.5  07:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon as previously mentioned. There are more than 800 Pokémon, so unless this Pokémon is or becomes particularly notable mostly everything can be explained in that section. Winissium (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I feel like the important sources here mostly only talks about how "ugly" the pokemon is, but I feel like it barely meets notability. LaryFoxBoy (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, enough significant coverage to meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2021 (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.