Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punch-Out!! characters


 * 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 speedy keep #1 housekeeping (and possibly others): nom does not put forth an argument for deletion and there are no other calls for deletion. AfD is for deletion discussions only. (Also there is a specific template to use for AfD setup and a way to nominate multiple articles as a bundle.) There are other venues for the type of discussion you describe, but AfD isn't it. non-admin closure czar ♔  15:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

A series of article about characters from the video game series Punch-Out!! (including but not limited to Bear Hugger and Mr. Sandman; others include Great Tiger and Super Macho Man) has been redirected because they supposedly "fail WP:GNG". I'm of a totally different opinion (as in: they easily pass minimal GNG requirements), but I'd like to estabilish its actual status via a Wikipedia-wide community consensus, applying the very same standards as to any other article anywhere in Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep (and possibly expand/update). The articles are perfectly fine, with demonstrated "significant" coverage citing multiple (more than a dozen each) independent sources discussing the various aspects of notable (some of the very first in the history of fighting game genre, well-known and popular, in a continued use for over a quarter century now) characters, with extremely robust reception sections (actually consisting of most of the articles) and just zero 'cruft' and no original research whatsoever. I believe nothing's fundamentally wrong with them and it's just some users applying arbitrary double standards that aren't in use in other parts of Wikipedia (such as film or comics characters).
 * They just seem to be slightly out of date, as it appears they haven't been updated for about 4 years now (there have been no new appearances since then, but the characters might well have been discussed even further in the meantime). I might help out with expanding/updating them, if needed (I don't think it's even really/urgently needed). --Niemti (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * lol. Ludicrous, bad faith and pointy nom. Keep as redirect and merge with parent article, as is already the unanimous consensus established elsewhere. bridies (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait for the Wikipedia community consensus estabilished here. --Niemti (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There won't be a consensus not to merge them, at AfD. bridies (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As above, nom is pissed is because there is a consensus to merge these articles: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. This farce is attempt to avoid an edit warring block, and is, yet again, the wrong venue. Amazing case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. bridies (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2014 (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.