Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanillite, Vanillish, and Vanilluxe


 * 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 to List of Pokémon (546–598). The nom is admonished to provide a clearer rationale in any future AfDs. Having said this, once an article is at AfD, an insufficient nom is not a good reason to !vote either way. In all, the merge arguments seem strongest. Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Vanillite, Vanillish, and Vanilluxe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability. Pelliesh (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , should be "video games" not "games", no? czar ⨹   03:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Could the nom address the problem you see with the sources? Given there are a lot of sources that seem reliable (though perhaps not on topic?  I don't know the area), I assume there is something seen as flawed with the sourcing?  Hobit (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm with Hobit--- a bare "Notability" is a junk nomination. What policy or guideline do you think this article violates and how?  Nha Trang  Allons! 19:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Strong keep Passes WP:GNG and coverage on these Pokémon is aplenty. I do declare a minor interest. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep not a fan of Pokemon-stuff, but "notability" is an obvious inadequate rationale for an article plenty of reliable sources. Cavarrone 22:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Pokémon (546–598). I agree that the one-word nomination is unhelpful, but while we're here and the discussion is stagnant and unfounded, there is no actual significant coverage of these few Pokémon or any claim to their exceptionality apart from regular Pokémon coverage. Every single article used here is but a passing mention of the topic aggregated (refbombed) to make it look like the character has coverage when it doesn't. Being mentioned a dozen times as a ridiculous idea for a Pokémon is not notability sufficient for its own article, though the most important blurbs can be merged into the list of Pokémon—this topic doesn't require anything more than that. As for the strong keeps above, I do not see what policy basis they stand upon. Mentioning the general notability guideline without specifying what sources constitute sigcov is but a vague wave. czar ⨹   17:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally the nom needs to tell us what's wrong. The vague wave there is where the problem starts.  In any case, I agree a lot of the sources have limited coverage (a line or three), but about 1/6th of  is about these three.  A large number of those sources cover these three because of the perceived "poor design"  for example.  And some do so in reasonable detail (a paragraph or so) .  This would raise to the bar of "significant coverage in reliable sources" to me. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Listicles confer no special notability on video game characters. Their contents are totally devoid of any exceptional traits—they are simply a presentation of a collection of things. The Huffpo article says literally nothing about VVV and the Kotaku is a passing mention. If all of these sources are together drawn out, we could possibly eke out a single paragraph on how this character is chastised as a lazy design, but there is absolutely nothing to add apart from that. Precedent for the hundreds of other Pokémon is to merge such inconsequential coverage into a concise summary at the topic's list entry. czar ⨹   17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Listicles are still articles and still coverage. In this case reliable, indpendent coverage.  The huffingtonpost article/listicle certainly does have coverage of all 3 btw. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. A huffpo article about a topic is not equivalent to being mentioned in a huffpo listicle. There has to be enough content to say something! and that is invariably not the case in listicles. As an example and for posterity, I'm quoting (in toto) the huffpo listicle "coverage" you're defending: This is not coverage, for purposes of the general notability guideline or otherwise. czar  ⨹   17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's certainly coverage. Reliable and independent. You claimed there was none which is the only reason I brought it up.   The point of the article is that these are weird/poorly designed.  And, in all seriousness, you are in violation of our policies on non-free content.  We'd not allow that long of a quote in an article, it certainly isn't suitable for non-articles space (where we are much much more conservative).   Hobit (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a brief excerpt well within the scope of fair use, and I believe it makes my point. Nothing else to add. czar ⨹   23:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per the sources I've cited above. Hobit (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Listicle appearances are next to worthless.  Incredibly minor fictional character. - hahnch e n 18:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (but with each individual name redirecting to List of Pokémon (546–598)). There are hundreds of these things, and maybe two or three are notable enough for their own articles.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to the list article as suggested above. The cited coverage seems to be mostly about lists of Pokémon among which are these; we should approach the matter similarly.  Sandstein   11:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Pokémon (546–598). Yes, there are lots of refs, but they're all junk.  I spot-checked the first six.  All of them are niche blogs (so, hardly qualify as reliable source, and even then, only give passing reference to these characters.   calls out the HuffPo article as a particularly good source, so I took a look at that also.  In general, I would consider HuffPo to be a reliable source, but the article itself, again, only gives passing mention; they are cited by name once, in the last sentence of the 4th paragraph.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2015 (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.