Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No definite conclusion has been reached. Many "keep" arguments are either vague or based on WP:ATA, while many "redirect" arguments vaguely parrot the same "non notable, but possible search term" argument. Both sides have called "speedy close" even though the situation is far more complex; as frequently brought up, this AfD is longer than the article itself. Whether it's a former featured article (not an indication of notability per se) or a passé fad (a vague, subjective characterization) has no bearing on the result, which is based on the sources provided. About halfway through, it appears that despite a numerical majority for "keep," there is a slight consensus towards "redirect" due to the higher quality of those arguments. But the "keep" !votes towards the end, which definitely contain portions of ATA that nonetheless don't negate their valid arguments, point out that perhaps Kww's standards were somewhat harsh; yes, most of the sources cannot be used to show notability, but if only a few of them are acceptable, then the subject is notable. Still, neither side is convincing enough to sway the entire debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bulbasaur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's time to finally get rid of this thing. The "sources will eventually be found" argument no longer holds water: Bulbasaur is part of a passe fad. If external sources were going to be found, they would have been found during the innumerable discussions that have been had. Despite the apparently impressive number of references, they are virtually all unacceptable: most are primary references to individual issues or episodes, officially licensed sources (licensed game guides), officially licensed Scholastic series, etc. Those few that are left are passing mentions (generally of the form "three starters are available: Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle"), or the occasional joke (referring to Bulbasaur as a "pesto salad"). In a final effort to prove notability, two satires have been used, clutching at this RSN discussion to show that satires are acceptable for demonstrating notability. That is being used to justify using this as a source. I can accept the concept of "widely satirized'=="notable", but the OSU Sentinel is a college newspaper. If the best independent source anyone can come up with is that, there's no reason to have this article. Given the disruptive history of this article, with anonymous editors resurrecting it and other editors then seizing on the opportunity to edit-war it back into existence, I would like to have the article deleted, and the position salted with a protected redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur, along with all the other 400 some odd critters. —Kww(talk) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expansion: This refrain of "Kww is just whining about the sources" is getting annoying, so here's a detailed breakdown of the sourcing, as of this Aug 4 version.
1:Acceptable, used to source Japanese name, which is already in the table.
2:PR Newswire is a press release, in this case from Nintendo. Regardless, doesn't mention Bulbasaur.
3:IGN review: marginal by nature, and doesn't mention Bulbasaur.
4:Dictionary of Toys and Games in American Popular Culture is a directory, so it doesn't contribute to notability. Regardless, sources only the position in the Pokedex, already part of the list.
5:Pokedex is a primary source.
6:Pokemon Trainers Guide is Nintendo licensed.
7:Game Freak might be acceptable, but this article doesn't mention Bulbasaur.
8:Anime Explosion!: The What? Why? & Wow! of Japanese Animation may be acceptable, but this is used only to source the Japanese name, a component of the table.
9:Time is quite reputable, but what do we get? "Fushigidane, a dinosaur with a green garlic bulb on its back, became Bulbasaur;, which has already been sourced and is in the table.
10 Smashbrothers.com is published by Nintendo.
11 ditto.
12 Pokédex is a Nintendo publication.
13 Pokédex is a Nintendo publication.
14 Pokédex is a Nintendo publication.
15 The Official Pokémon Handbook is a Nintendo-licensed game guide.
16 Localizing Pokémon Through Narrative Play contains some references to Bulbasaur in the interviews with children about playing with Pokémon.
17 Pokemon.co.jp is a Nintendo website.
18 Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination. contains a starter list: "A player must first find Professor Oak—the world's foremost expert on Pokémonology—who offers three choices for starter Pokémon: Bulbasaur (grass type), Charmander (fire type), or Squirtle (water type)."
19 Parentpreviews.com contains a passing reference: "A later excursion takes us to Ochre Woods where Bulbasaur is making stew for lunch".
20 Passing reference in a table listing hundreds of prizes in a game.
21 Smashbrothers.com is a Nintendo site, and this is just another copy of the Smash Brothers Melee prize list.
22 "Seaside Pikachu" video is a primary source.
23 "Seaside Pikachu" video is a primary source.
24 "Seaside Pikachu" video is a primary source.
25 "Pikachu Party" video is a primary source.
26 "Grass Hysteria" is a primary source.
27 "Pruning a Passel of Pals!" is a primary source.
28 http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=270 is a directory listing, used to source the American dub voice.
29 http://maco.cha.to/pokemon/pipipi/chara03.html appears to be a fansite.
30 Pokémon Adventures, Volume 1: Desperado Pikachu is a primary source.
31 Pokémon Adventures: Legendary Pokémon, Vol. 2 is a primary source.
32 Pokémon Adventures, Volume 3: Saffron City Siege is a primary source.
33 ditto.
34 "Official Pokemon TCG site" is a licensed source.
35 Bulbasaur's Bad Day is a primary source.
36 Pokemon Tales Volume 3: Bulbasaur's Trouble is a primary source.
37 http://www.gamesradar.com/ds/f/the-complete-pokemon-rby-pokedex-part-1/a-200708209459101025/g-2006100415372930075 is a reproduction of the Pokedex
38 http://www.allgame.com/character.php?id=3141 is a table entry in a game guide
39 http://www.pojo.com/priceguide/jpMcD.html is a price guide listing of Pokemon giveaways, listing Bulbasaur as a Pokemon trading card.
40 http://www.fastfoodtoys.net/burger+king+pokemon+power+cards.htm is another listing of giveaways.
41 https://www.ana.co.jp/eng/flights/pokemonjet/design.html lists Bulbasaur as one of 11 Pokemon on the plane design.
42 2004 standard catalog of world coins documents novelty coin minted by Nieu. Part of a complete index of world coins.
43 http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/articleid/336320/newspaperid/1422/Pokemon_Pres_Spearot_Uses_Cartoon_Icons_To_Give_Children_A_Wii_Bit_of_Joy.aspx is a high school newspaper.
44 is a duplicate of 41
45 http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/TV/9910/05/pokemon/ gives a passing mention to Bulbasaur in an article about school discipline troubles caused by trading card games.
46 VIZ Media Announces New Pokémon Products for 2006 Holiday Season is a press release.
47 Pondering Pokemon is an editorial in a college newspaper.
48 Pokemon War! Point-Counterpoint is an article in a satirical college newspaper. It's about like using The Onion as a source.
49 Bulbasaur Biography on IGN is part of a directory listing.
50 http://faqs.ign.com/articles/380/380258p1.html is a pseudonymously published game walkthrough.
51 http://www.gamesradar.com/f/the-top-7-gut-wrenching-choices/a-2009050410717660001/p-4/c-1?newest is an editorial column, mentioning the editorial writer's personal opinion about Ivysaur.
52 http://www.salon.com/entertainment/col/mill/1999/07/06/pikachu/print.html : the pesto joke.
53 http://web.archive.org/web/19990508192305/http://starbulletin.com/1999/04/26/features/story1.html is an entertainment story written by a group of 4 children between 5 and 8 years old.
54 Pikachu's global adventure is acceptable enough, but is being used to source one anonymous child's opinion of Bulbasaur.
So, there you go. I'm not whining. 54 sources, virtually all of them unacceptable, and the very few acceptable ones don't say anything that isn't in the list article.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's impressive, and will be useful in cleaning up the article more if it still exists. Your'e still glossing over the three sources that establish notability. I didn't look to hard, but the IGN directory doesn't seem to be something that covers everything. It's selective about which ones actually receive a lot of coverage, like Bulby. I wish The Onion would do a long article on Bulby. That would be great for establishing notability, in my opinion. And the Notre Dame editorial is also a good one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not glossing. The Notre Dame editorial contributes nothing to the article. Even if you accept the idea that an op-ed piece in a college newspaper is a source, all it sources is the opinion of one Justin Tardiff, a completely unimportant person. The satire article is just that, and the IGN directory entry is a directory entry. If we had any hint of their selection standards, maybe it would squeak by. Articles are supposed to rely on independent sources, and you can't rely on independent sources if they don't say anything.—Kww(talk) 17:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though they list all the Pokemon, or other characters, they don't write much about all of them. Only a select few give what is needed for reception. Just because they write about all of them doesn't mean it can't be used. You are looking to deep into things. Those IGN and GamesRadar sources are fine. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that IGN guide is written by a staff member. We have discussed it before with other articles. She is legit. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems silly to decry the GamesRadar articles on that logic. So what if the first is a reproduction of the Pokédex? It still discusses Bulbasaur. And as for the latter, editorial or not, it's still an approved article by a reliable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per Kww. It has been several months/years now. If sources were out there, they would have been found. The people who are so adamant it be kept either couldn't find anything worthwhile or didn't even bother looking. There's nothing here that can't be kept in the List. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur - Even though I think it probably has enough notability, this isn't really the right place to have this discussion. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Has enough sources for notability. Other editors are just wanting to redirect based on older versions of the article, and just dislike 2 of the sources, which the article doesn't rely on for notability. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect it back to the list, and protect the redirect if necessary. Its a plausible search term, and having the history intact will help anyone who wants to write a better article on the subject. In the meantime, its probably not notable enough for its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as separate article. It has received significant coverage in independant reliable sources. It's also getting a bit of coverage as we speak.[1][2][3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That "coverage" is from people who speculate that Victini is #000 in the National dex, when it is just #000 in the Isshu dex. It doesn't really qualify for anything.Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. True, printed sources are limited to brief notices in family-oriented "non-fiction" variety. But their number indicates that the phenomenon has crept into "popular culture" or, at least, children's world. No indication of "passe fad". BTW, what makes "this time" so good for "finally getting rid of this thing"? East of Borschov 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was resurrected yesterday by yet another editor that logged out prior to doing so. There's a history here: the edit wars start only after being touched off by anonymous editors, never by an editor that will take responsibility for his actions.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, agree with previous suggestions and reasoning on redirect. The subject is notable but only as a member of the larger group/list and phenomenon. Likely to be the subject of future searches, so redirect is justified.Nitack (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur It lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, outsode the parent franchise. Edison (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redir to target noted by others. No independent, significant coverage, fails WP:N. Time to take a firmer hand with nerdcruft here. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not that it matters, but to say "no significant coverage" without explaining why the significant coverage that is already in the article doesn't count is a bit lame. But it's OK, I don't always supply well reasoned votes myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was tempted to reply at your !vote, but refrained. The problem is that there is no significant coverage. Even if we grant the notability of satire, satire articles in college newspapers certainly can't be considered "significant coverage". Aside from that, you've got virtually nothing. If there's "significant coverage" from independent sources, you'll have to point it out.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not the notability of satire. You need three things. 1) It has to be a reliable source. College newspapers are considered reliable sources. 2) Is has to be non-trivial. The source is multiple paragraphs. I think they break it down into two pages, even. 3) It has to be indpendant. The college newspaper is not affiliated with Nintendo, so it is independent. So, by the rules of WP:NOTE, it passes. Now, AfDs are actually vote counts, and not weird impartial weighing of arguments (contrary to what people like to state, and I actually think vote counting is the correct way to go anyways), but based on our rules, this subject meats NOTE. Oh, and there was that other source that pretty much everyone agreed was good.[4] So the college newspaper article is the second one, and there is no policy based reason to not count it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even if you remove that reference though, there are still plenty of other sources discussing the subject. I think Bulbasaur is not becoming an article because everybody is so focused on that one source being bad. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reason why is that back in 2008 (I think it was), Bulbasaur became a proxy article in a big fight over the coverage of fiction on Wikipedia. That's why Kww cares about the article, it's also why I care about the article. It stands for "fiction coverage should be scaled back" vs. "fiction coverage should not be scaled back". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • In response to your whiny, but not unexpected, "well reasoned votes" remark... Looking through the citations in this article, I see satire refs in college rags, name-drops in reviews of the video games where this character appears, and little else. Show me something on the level of Pikachu being #2 on a Time People of the Year list. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • All this article has is multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. If you raise the bar beyond that, I admit it will not pass. Or course you've then raised the bar beyond what NOTE requires, so while I don't find your argument to be super well reasoned, your getting there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sources that, at most, do a name-drop. That is about as non-trivial as it gets. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a former featured article, linked to on the main page of the Wikipedia. It is a major character in a notable series, even appearing in the title of some of the games, books, and animated films. The Reception and legacy section of the article, shows it gets ample coverage. Dream Focus 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur, and indef-protect the redirect. In substance, this is really a discussion over whether an article should have been restored from a redirect, not whether an article should be outright deleted along with its revision history. With that said, this particular discussion should really be carried out at Talk:Bulbasaur. If a consensus cannot be reached, that's where the Requests for comment feature comes in. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom and Melicans. None, or few, of the reliable sources cover the subject in detail. Any important information can be summarized in List of Pokémon (1–20). I'd also like to point out that I think some of the other species that have their own articles should be redirected. Rayquaza, for example, is just as "non-notable" as Bulbasaur IMO. Theleftorium (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue is essentially one of forking. The nomination asserts that this is a passé fad, as if this were either true or relevant, but does not actually want us to remove Bulbasaur content from Wikipedia. Instead, the content is to be contained in the article List of Pokémon (1–20). The latter seems an entirely synthetic creation of Wikipedia editors — this grouping is not supported by any reliable source and so it is tagged as requiring reliable sources. Bulbasaur is an especially notable Pokemon, as it is prominent in the game and other media. Putting together notable Pokemon with less notable Pokemon to make arbitrary anthologies or compilations, seems quite improper. This list in question has not reached featured status, as the Bulbasaur article did, and has itself been nominated for deletion more than once. So, removing a featured article to bolster a dubious and inferior list seems quite absurd and we should build upon the stronger foundation. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Bulbasaur is a former featured article; one of over 800 articles to have lost the status, many of which also appeared on the front page. That it was featured in the past has no bearing on this discussion. It was promoted over 4 years ago, and demoted over three. The FA standards have changed exponentially in the last four years, so to claim it should be kept because it was once featured and the list has not is, quite simply, ridiculous. It has been said multiple times in previous discussions over the course of several months/years that proper third-party sources are needed; details that focus on Bulbasaur, and do not give it just a passing mention. The people who advocate that the article be kept have said that they exist, but consistently fail to produce any. It would seem that they do not exist after all. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply:Please don't misrepresent my views. I absolutely want the content contained at Bulbasaur that is not currently in the list to be deleted. It consists of a completely unnecessary expansion of the plot summaries of the referenced works combined with unnecessary trivia. I clearly desire for the "delete" button to be pressed. Further, your logic seems to be based on a mechanical restriction: you object to the "1-20" grouping, when all that is for is to avoid the size problems presented by a complete "List of Pokemon" article.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your command of the topic seems weak. For example, the main Bulbasaur article tells us the name of the designer of this creation. This is a quite important fact which the List article does not contain. Your dismissal of such information as plot/trivia is clearly false and misleading. Also, your description of the game as a passe fad is likewise false. By coincidence, a friend of mine recently boasted that he and his son were going on an expenses paid trip to Hawaii, to compete in the World Championships, the son having won the national championship here. There are few other games which are supported in this lavish way. Nintendo's financial reports for the last FY indicates that the game still sells millions of units in various forms and so is still a major franchise. As your usual stamping ground is popular music, it seems apparent that your activity here is not due to any genuine interest or knowledge of the topic but reflects instead a hostility towards it. Such antagonistic activity is contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, Protect - Normally, from the sources given and what I see on Google Books/Scholar, I would rather we keep in favor of something that is more than non-notable. But this would be an exception: most of Bulbasaur's notability is really just from it being one of the core Pokemon and not, say, like Pikachu where it's recognizable outside of the series. It is a fine line, but I think here the better approach is to discuss the real-world points (eg toy sales, favorite pokemon) in the larger context of the franchise itself as opposed to separate articles for each character, because there's minimal discussion of any critical response to the character. If this is redirected and protected, there should be a message to contact a specific admin or group to propose a new version of the article that may be better suited in the future for notability as to allow review and restoration, if needed. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Pokémon (1-20)#Bulbasaur per the precedent used for most Pokémon. The List has enough detailed information where a redirect would work perfectly. Tavix |  Talk  18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's older than that - our archives show it was featured in July 2006. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect after this much time we should admit there are no appropriate sources to WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. (Only primary sources, game guides, instruction manuals or quotes that verify bare existence.) No one has been able to fix this article to meet Wikipedia standards. To quote WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Shooterwalker (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes the general notability guidelines. --Malkinann (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect and protect- does not pass the general notability guideline in its own right, but is a very plausible search term. Reyk YO! 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may be HOUNDING (or something) at this point, but I've provided two reliable, independent, non-trivial (so on and so forth) sources in a previous post not far above, which are used in the article. Can you give me a policy based reason why those two sources aren't one of the three (I ask, because I've been here a long time, and I know those policies will not provide a reason, mr. closing admin). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'm generally in agreement w/ the nom's statement. I will check back when I have made a more thorough search of the past AfDs and possible sources. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone have access to this?[7] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is probably this. My library says that full text is available via free access but that doesn't seem to be the case. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's good to know. I probably can't get it in rural Southern Oregon, but at least it kinda exists. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, solely to troll the pathetic social invalids who are actually bothered by the existence of this article. It's been there for fucking years and no one cares even slightly except for the <20 people who want to destroy it. Jesus Christ, instead of putting so much effort into making sure people can't find information on a cartoon dinosaur, why don't you people go try to enforce your obtrusive and personal ideals about Wikipedia's standards on an article that actually matters? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's been NOT an article for years. And please, watch your language. This isn't some random gaming forum. But by the way you form your post, you never actually say that the contents are strong enough to be separate. In fact, you specifically state that the article doesn't matter. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And look what he just wrote here. He wants to delete the lists because the information is redundant to Bulbapedia. He is swinging back and forth, lol. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been here long enough to know the proper Wiki conduct protocols, but like most people I came to the realization a long time ago that these game and fiction related discussions/AfDs are just arbitrary circlejerks where nerds push their egos around with as much force as the guidelines allow. This article doesn't matter, it's a lame duck, so just make a decision and stick with it ffs. No one uses this site expecting to find any worthwhile information on subjects such as this anymore. And no, I'm not discussing the deletion of those lists because they're "redundant to Bulbapedia", it's because they're not actually useful at all. They're like a pile of fortune cookie fortunes sitting next to a textbook on philosophy and self-help. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps you should complain about policies on the policy pages, not everywhere else.
          • I see now that you understand conduct protocols, you just don't care about them. Wikipedia has no need for people who do not care about the policies. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • He does have a point: most of the fanfare about fiction deletion is way outsized in comparison to the actual marginal importance of a particular article. Most of the really big battles have been over conceptions of what wikipedia "ought" to be, they just happened to take place on AfDs for "Nameless Crewman No. 9" and "Obscure In Universe Concept from a Universe without Many On-wiki Fans". As for your response, I hope that isn't true. All evidence to the contrary, the purpose of wikipedia is to build a collaborative encyclopedia, not to construct and follow rules. Protonk (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." The rules exist to ensure that the collaborative encyclopedia is built correctly. Am I to understand that incivility and personal attacks are somehow allowed by IAR? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • No. You are to understand that rules ought to be subordinate to the end goal. When those rules become dominant or otherwise a force unto themselves, we ought to begin ignoring them. Obviously this is mostly a lost cause. Wikipedia's fifth pillar is not exactly a good description of practice. But my ears perk up when I read talk like "Wikipedia has no need for people who do not care about the policies." Protonk (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've never met anyone who thinks that caring for policies is somehow a wrong goal. I'm going to make the assumption that because they exist, that they are correct in their use almost every time. IAR exists for the infrequent exception where the rules interfere with the quality of an article. The policy is "ignore all rules", not "don't give no crap about the rules". If you don't care about the rules, it means that you don't understand them, and as such, you cannot possibly have any valid reason to employ the Ignore All Rules policy. So, I reiterate, if you do not care about the rules, then leave Wikipedia. And stop using IAR for something completely different from how it's supposed to be used. It's not to be used for general anarchy. Generally, the rules WILL be right. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother to have them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Now now, no need to get into a pointless "Bureaucracy vs. Actual Constructiveness" war, that won't solve anything. It never does. It's kind of cute to see Retro's views on the rules be so rigid, like they're set in stone something, when they're really just ensemble essays put together by a bunch of internet goers that're in dire need of reform. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It's kind of cute to see you debate this subject when the only policy you've violated is incivility, which is not ignorable by any capacity. The only thing constructive that you could do, if you continue on the path that you're taking in this discussion, the most constructive thing you can do is leave the discussion. If you care to have a serious discussion about the article, then feel free. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable prev featured article, deletion is not a solution to cleanup problems the article may have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has issues of non-notability, something that is not rectified by a simple "clean it up" non-response. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do the current sources not suffice? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your questioning is getting just a tad overdone, PF. It's because while satire may contribute to notability, a satire article from a college newspaper is about as weak as it can get. Because a description page from a site dedicated to describing every detail of every game comes under the heading of directory listing.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you have a stronger case on the directory listing thing than the other. I haven't checked where IGN draws the line on Pokemon and other characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I looked into it a little bit. They've got a fricken ton of characters,[8] but the less famous ones don't have what we'd call significant coverage. For instance, some comic guy I never heard of (and I know comics).

[9] Even Aang doesn't have much.[10] I think Bulbasaur's page is bit rare, although they probably plan on expanding them all eventually. My search was also non scientific. They may focus on VG or anime characters, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment So even though Bulbasaur was featured on a legal tender coin from Niue, was voted one of the top ten Pokémon by fans, was deemed a children's favorite in 1999, and currently is featured on the side of an airplane for international flights[11], it STILL is not notable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You people are acting like there are only 2 sources in the reception section. There are 11. What is wrong about those? Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of them are short mentions. I notice the Notre Dame Observer one is a bit over a paragraph though, so that's three reliable, independant, non-trivial sources. Nice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, it's a paragraph. Please summarize the objective facts about Bulbasaur that it tells us that are not already present in the list article.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just saying it helps to meet NOTE. (More) subjective things like it's value are not things I think I can convince you of. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are currently 54 reliable sources. Bad faith nomination. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My inclination is that there is enough sourcing to warrant keeping the article and not redirecting, but I am on the fence so I can understand the desire for a redirect to the list, or even a protected redirect. But I don't understand why deletion should even be a consideration, given that the subject's presence in the list in not under debate (indeed, even the nominator refers to information in the list as a reason for deleting). Rlendog (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the user most advocating for it to be kept (Peregrine Fisher) asked for the article to be taken to AFD. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And because there's nothing in the article that isn't in the list that needs to be kept? And because as long as it's there, anonymous editors perpetually resurrect the article without justification?—Kww(talk) 03:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Melicans: it's complicated. If you want, we can discuss it here. Are you aware of the multi year history of this article, in terms of people wanting to delete and keep it?
        • Yes, since I have been involved in quite a few of these discussion over the course of the last few years myself. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Yes[reply]
      • Kww: I cannot believe that you really think that all 40+ refs are worthless. I'm guilty of hyperbole in this very AfD myself, so I can't fault you much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should believe it, PF. Whether you agree with me or not, I'm not exaggerating my beliefs. The identity of the designer should probably get added as a note to the list entry, but none of the rest of the material has a place here.—Kww(talk) 04:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Which pokemon was chosen as the anime mascot of Japan? I know one was chosen by one of the prime ministers but forgot which one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still gets about 200 views per day. Will be useful for folk who want a richer understanding of the fantasy universe they play in, or parents who want to tell consistent stories to their younger children, etc. Fair enough a few editors don't like it, existing references only just about establish notability (IMO) and better references don't seem easy to find on the web, but it seems a harmless article so it may be better for those who want to destroy it to just take if off their watchlists rather than deprive thousands of readers of an interesting article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I've rarely seen WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITSUSEFUL invoked so literally; a "keep" that will most certainly be discarded. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For those who like their article size, edit this discussion and look at the top. This AfD discussion alone is longer than many articles at a whopping 37 KB! Raymie Humbert (t • c) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it's only three days old. That's good. It means it's drawing in new opinions, instead of the usual suspeccts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well for those who are intrested the current tally as of August 2nd is 2: Delete 12 Redirect and 13 keep. Consensus seems to split here and by no means is this based on a vote I know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numbers don't really matter. Because some people just say generic responses, which don't count towards consensus AT ALL. The things that matter are the people who say WHY they want it to be deleted/kept, and go into detail on how the article does or doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, redirect to [List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur], and indef-protect the redirect. per SoCalSuperEagle. Seems like the simplest solution. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's "simplest" isn't always the right thing. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, simplest follows policy, given all current evidence. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong soliloquize 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur - Reliable sources do not exist to warrant a full article on this subject. The information provided in the list article is more than sufficient. If there is a history of this article being recreated inappropriately by IP's, then protecting the redirect might be appropriate. SnottyWong gossip 14:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a well-referenced, well-written, and well-developed article, with numerous reliable sources for each of the sections that deal with real-world information, namely Development and Reception, making it pass WP:NOTE by several kilometers. Those editors who insist that only delete arguments are according to policy are, to assume good faith, going by an older state of the article. Arguments that it's time to "put a stake through" this are not arguments made in good faith, but based on emotions left over from prior arguments. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, has everybody actually seen the article lately? People have been adding to it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since the AFD opened, these changes have been made. Mainly wikilink and reference cleanup, with a trivia point about a horse and a misrepresentation of a study about children's cognition removed.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This AFD is some 10 kb longer than the article (42 kb v. 32 kb). Bulbasaur as an article could stand to be SPLIT soon given the size restrictions forthcoming. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considerable notability. Notability is really the only thing in question here, and all other points brought up by Deleter have been refuted. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ?Please point me at any of my points that have been refuted. If you can show that all of my points have been refuted, I'll switch to "keep".—Kww(talk) 00:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – After looking at the Reception references, I think there's enough there for notability and coverage for a separate article. However, I will note that being a former Featured Article (which was 4 1/2 years ago when the FA standards were significantly lower) should not have any bearing, but rather what is currently in the article and what may be out there which is not yet in the article. –MuZemike 02:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking, I can see that more references deal more specifically with Bulbasaur than the nominator suggests. Being in the top 10 adds to reception; the description of him versus the other two starters, while comparing him to them, does talk specifically about Bulbasaur. The Ohio thing really does reek of game guide content. Both IGN sources and both GamesRadar sources are fine. The "children's favourite section", while an unnecessary split, has clearly notable content. I think that Bulbasaur is getting the third degree; at this point, more and more sources have been popping up, and I don't think it's necessary to put a higher standard on the character than other character articles. I figure it's fair to keep. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, hold the salt: I see that most of the sources are not necessarily acceptable, but there is no way of predicting the future. There could be more useful information later on, there could not be. They could make a movie about Bulbasaur for all we know! Just cull out the crud (primary episode sources, pointless reception) and bring in what's notable to Bulbasaur's articlette on the list page. I could care less about the page, but unsuspecting visitors might wonder the importance of one starter over others, simply because it's a classic and #001. 2Ð ℳǣ$₮ℝʘ talk, sign 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: Since this article was first nominated, many more WP:RS have been provided which clearly establish notability. Although many of the sources aren't independent, they are considered reliable for providing information; there are enough independent sources to establish notability. --138.110.206.150 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there seems to be enough notability and coverage within the Reception and legacy section to warrent its own article, praise goes to the editors working on finding these additional sources in order to save the article. Salavat (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Who are you praising? No sources have been added since the nomination.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, several editors and I have been working to "save" it for a couple of years now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[12][13] These are reliable third party sources discussing the subject. They have been added since the nom. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Missed those in the noise of reference format editing. Yes, they are sources. Not that they say anything non-trivial. An op-ed piece on a game site is reliable only for sourcing the opinion of the game site, which is of no importance whatsoever. The scientific study reports the opinion of one anonymous child. Add those two references together, and you still get nothing of any merit or value. That's the problem with the "keep" arguments here: people are counting references, and not doing any analysis of what those references say. The reliable sources provide essentially no information, but they are being used as a justification for an article based on primary sources.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they cover gaming does not mean that their opinion is irrelevant. You'd have a good point if the source was a Pokémon fan site, but it isn't - it's a reputable gaming web site that is cited for its opinion frequently. Not to make assumptions of bad faith, but you seem to be applying a harsher burden for this article than someone would normally. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Hippo; Kww does seem to be applying a harsh standard. (I won't accuse him of double-standards because I'm not looking at any other AfDs he has initiated.) Besides that, I have nothing to say which hasn't already been said by keepers. --Gwern (contribs) 08:12 5 August 2010 (GMT)
  • Keep. Kww is asking for 3rd party sources on parts of the article that can't have 3rd party sources due to copyright. In such cases, official material is considered the best source, even though they are "affiliated" with the subject. Plus Google shows half a million results for bulbasaur, which demonstrates the magnatude of bulbasaur's cutural impact on the world; heck, a lot of important real people don't have that many results. —CodeHydro 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with popularity second next to Pikachu, not to mention the fact that it is another long withstanding Pokémon of main characters such as Ash and May. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I could care less what we do with it, but Kww has a point, with the fact that most of the sources are invalid. Change it to a redirect, perhaps, or keep it. It's not as if most of the stuff in the article is necessary for people to understand what a Bulbasaur is. 2Ð ℳǣ$₮ℝʘ talk, sign 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bulbasaur_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1150000842"