Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incineroar

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 redirect to List of generation VII Pokémon#List of Pokémon. Sandstein 08:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incineroar

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Incineroar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG per concerns raised by User:Sergecross73. Reads like a FANDOM Wiki page without any indication of significant coverage. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. — Hunter Kahn 14:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - the nomination echoes my initial concerns I raised without response. It reads like a fan wikia and is sourced to unreliable or first party sourcing. Even with some better sourcing I still feel it would fail the WP:POKEMON test. Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It can be argued that especially with the character being featured prominently in the games, in the anime, and other media (like the incredibly popular Super Smash Bros. series) that the character is notable enough for an article, with sources backing this up. Additionally, the character's controversial reveal to the Pokémon franchise, and subsequently its controversial reveal for its inclusion in the Super Smash Bros. franchise, were both covered by various reliable sources (which I'm currently working on incorporating into the article.) Nonetheless, Incineroar is featured in Pokémon-related and non-Pokémon media alike, and is more relevant of a character than various other Pokémon species that have pages. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added SIX more sources expanded the sections of "Reception" and "In video games" a lot more. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants of a similar discussion on Greninja (@Steel1943 and Onel5969: who voted to keep Greninja as a redirect and @Tavix: who voted to keep the Greninja article), and @BrawlersintheZone: who helped create the Incineroar article. Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you outline which ones in particular you believe are helping it meet the WP:GNG through significant coverage from reliable sources? I’m still seeing a lot of passing mentions and unreliable sources... Sergecross73 msg me 20:02, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a lot of sources that would never seriously pass muster. Nothing that is specifically about the character (they are about Smash Bros Ultimate and happen to mention Incineroar).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this, I think the sources demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as Keep, relisted after complaints from nominator to run for an additional week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 13:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as a non-notable video game and media character failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. None of the significant sources are about the character, they are about individual games adding the character and other characters to their roster. These are all usable sources for those facts, but this is not significant coverage of the topic itself as required by GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. This is all just routine reveal news and announcement hype with no lasting notability. I do not agree at all with the above assessment that the controversy at release, appearance in multiple media, the character's name appearing in source titles, the fact that sources exist or that the article was expanded somehow satisfy notability criteria. Disclaimer: saw the discussion mentioned on VG talk. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviewed the newly-added sources, but came to same conclusion. All are incidental or passing coverage of the subject matter and not significant coverage. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT. As shown earlier, Incineroar is notable and passes WP:GNG. However, the page definitely needs to be rewritten. Also, some sources on Incineroar outside of Super Smash Bros. would definitely be good to have. InvalidOStalk 15:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SpicyMilkBoy provided excellent analysis of the sources that have caused me to change my !vote to redirect, as it fails the WP:GNG. As a Pokemon, it should be redirected to List of Generation VII Pokémon#Incineroar. InvalidOStalk 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    • I mean, no ones even established notability. They WP:BOMBARDed the article with some unreliable sources and trivial passing mentions, and then all just started echoing WP:ITSNOTABLE over one another, ignoring requests to actually outline which sources are reliable and provide significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • InvalidOS It's good to hear you feel the subject definitely passes notability standards, but since we have an editor in Paintspot who has made improvements and I believe has expressed interest in continuing to do so, I strongly disagree that the article is in such poor shape that it needs to be destroyed before it can be improved. There is no deadline for improvements such as these. — Hunter Kahn 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Paintspot Comment. I've not done much searching at all on this subject because it seemed that you and Toughpigs are already on it, but I'll toss a couple of sources your way in case they are helpful in future expansions: [1] [2] [3] [4]. — Hunter Kahn 15:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • These fall under the same sort of issues already mentioned. Businesswire is a press release, so it’s not third party coverage that counts towards the GNG, and a Student-run Newspaper isn’t really a RS either. The others are more short listical entries about Pokemon. There’s very little that helps here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sergecross73, you have made your opinion about the outcome of this AFD extremely clear, to the point that you helped complain to the closing admin to get this relisted despite a clear WP:CONSENSUS toward keeping. Please read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and consider attempting to resist responding to every individual point you disagree with in the future. — Hunter Kahn 15:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Its not bludgeoning to respond to newly presented sources, which is two of my three responses today prior to this response. There’s also nothing wrong with politely requesting a relist on an AFD close, which was honored after one simple comment. Please don’t attempt to twist this to misconduct on my part. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • The AfD was - quite obviously - closed prematurely, as the numerous comments here can attest. There was no "clear consensus" and any attempt to suggest as such is laughable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Zxcvbnm No it was not. It was closed after one week, which is extremely customary, and it was closed with a Keep result after a majority of the participants argued in favor of keep, which is also an extremely customary result. You complained, which is your right, and the closer re-opened it, which in my view was the incorrect course of action. Now it's been reopened after having been previously closed, which unfortunately makes the earlier consensus appear tainted and makes it much more likely for new voters to vote against it. You have helped to upend consensus and taint this whole process, which is unfortunate, but it is what it is. — Hunter Kahn 02:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Deriving a consensus isn’t just counting votes, like you’re describing. It’s about reviewing and weighing the various stances according to policy. It’s pretty clear that the initial keep comments are little more than WP:ITSNOTABLE votes that didn’t specifically outline how the GNG was met. No one could identify significant coverage either, despite directly being asked. One of the keeps doesn’t even seem to know what the GNG is. Your response sounds like sour grapes and nothing else. Sergecross73 msg me 02:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to think your argument is wrong. In any event, the AFD is ongoing again, and this discussion is adding nothing to that conversation, so I see no reason we need to continue it. Thanks. :) (Incidentally Sergecross73, do you have any thoughts as to whether my expansions and the sources I've added to the article help satisfy WP:GNG now?) — Hunter Kahn 02:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (or delete, whichever): the sources are extremely poor, being almost all primary. These can be used, of course, but should be sparingly and backed by reliable secondary independent sources wherever possible. This has not been done; the topic fails to demonstrate the most basic requirements for passing WP:GNG. ——SN54129 15:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The Reception section does not have much in the way of substantial examples of notability. I could see them being used as supplementary, but they're weak as support beams for the article. A lack of information on creation is also a big oof. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 15:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite. I feel Incineroar is iconic enough to have a designated article. A Pokémon like Pikachu is well known through a couple of franchises, not just Pokémon itself. Incineroar, be it not as well know as Pikachu, meets this criterion. The current article that exists is rather messy, but I'm sure some of the information can be retained. I reccoment looking at other designated Pokémon article for a base structure. --Diriector_Doc┝Talk
    Contribs    ━━━┥     17:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Fails to establish notability. Most of the sources this article uses are either primary, unreliable, or press releases. There's very little to even use here. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There isn't much wrong with the primary sources in the article. They seem to comply with WP:PRIMARY:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care [...] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

--Diriector_Doc┝Talk
Contribs━━━┥ 20:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the WP:GNG. Primary sources can’t be used to prove notability. I’m pretty sure that’s the point he’s making. They’re usable in a general sense, but they don’t factor in to AFD discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Primary sources can be used here and there in articles, but when like more than half of the page uses primary sources, that is when it becomes a problem. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 22:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I would think this could eventually be an article of its own in the future but for now there does not seem like enough reliable sourcing for it to warrant its own page. GamerPro64 21:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In response to so many comments above about the lack of secondary sources, the dependence on primary sources, and the state of the current article, I've decided to do a minimal amount of expansion work to this article, not so much adding new content per se (though I can see from my searches there is the potential for more to be added) but rather to provide secondary sources to the existing content here and alleviate some of the concerns raised in this AFD. Please note this is NOT intended to represent the full extent of sources out there about this character (hell, I didn't even add all the sources that have been pointed out in this AFD), but just enough to source what's already there and to show the article passes WP:GNG. Additional improvements can be made in the future, but I'm hoping what's been done so far will be sufficient to address some of the concerns raised by users like GamerPro64, Namcokid47, Abryn, InvalidOS, Serial Number 54129 and others. — Hunter Kahn 22:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How many times will I be pinged? GamerPro64 23:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shoot, so sorry - hadn't realized that they actually pinged you / that the template that they used ("{{U}}") also pings people. My bad, didn't mean to ping you when User:Hunter Kahn had already used a template that had pinged you. Sorry. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m getting some severe WP:BOMBARD vibes here. Rather than demonstrating how the GNG is met, you’ve bloated the article up with unreliable sources, fansites, and cruft. Sergecross73 msg me 02:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Serge, for responding, yet again, with your previously-voiced opinion. — Hunter Kahn 03:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (Just want to say I apologized on my talk page to a few editors here for my tone yesterday, which stemmed more from real-life issues with me than anything here. — Hunter Kahn 23:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
”Previously voiced”? That was my first comment on the rewrite you did mere hours ago... Sergecross73 msg me 04:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I am taking this conversation off my watchlist and will not be participating in the discussion or responding to inquiries any further. I believe this particular AFD has not been handled well (I voiced my opinion earlier that a consensus was established and largely overturned because a few editors were unhappy with the outcome, which I understand others disagree with) and I unfortunately believe the conversation is now tainted, with little chance of reaching a clear consensus, and I don't believe that good faith efforts to establish notability are likely to be acknowledged by certain participants. I admit my frustration with this process has at times led me to taking a tone that has been less than helpful, so I think it best that I just walk away altogether. — Hunter Kahn 03:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find that to be a pretty petty and immature way to handle a discussion like this. Nobody here is being biased, I don't where you got that idea from. I agree with Serge and others that have said it lacks notability, lots of the sources that were added are just fluff to pad out the article and made it look better from a visual standpoint and not one based on the actual content. Given this character's popularity I won't be surprised if he gets more coverage in the future, but for the time being I don't think this page fits the notability critera. Still a concerning amount of primary sources and fan-created content which is not suitable for a Wikipedia page. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 03:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Still going to try to bow out of this conversation, but a point of factual correction to the above: there are no primary sources in this article anymore. All have been removed. And none are fan-generated either; all are secondary sources. The reliability of some could be debated, though in the past most if not all have been considered acceptable for subject matter like this, but that's another debate altogether. To continue to maintain that the article relies on primary sources is simply inaccurate. — Hunter Kahn 05:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC) )[reply]
  • Redirect. Sources are mostly unreliable. International Business Times is generally unreliable per WP:RSP; The Inquisitr seems to be a clickbait site that publishes hard hitting journalism like "Miami Bombshell Genesis Lopez Bares Her Curvy Booty In A Tiny String Bikini"; Geek.com and Nintendo Insider are blogs; United Press International publishes press releases, etc. The citations to reliable sources, such as [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], do not provide significant coverage: they are passing mentions, discussing the character for two or three sentences at most. Polygon devotes two paragraphs to the character, but that alone is not enough to make it notable, and those two paragraphs are rather chatty and bloated anyway. The sourcing is insufficient to pass GNG. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know many of the redirect votes have come in direct response to this, but I respectfully think this analysis is off-base. Sites like Geek.com, Inquisitr and UPI have been generally considered acceptable for topics like this in past RS noticeboard discussions, and while I generally consider IBT unreliable for controversial or complex newsy topics, video games don't really fit that bill. But even if you threw all of them away, you'd still be left with coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. And the fact that several of the reliable sources only mention it in a sentence or two shouldn't be taken as a strike against notability, because again, I didn't arbitrarily add sources with long mentions just to demonstrate notability. I added sources to back up the specific facts that were uncited in this article. Sometimes I used a source with only a sentence or two because that sentence or two cited that specific fact. We don't do a sentence count in sources to determine notability, that's just not how it works, and the wide amount of coverage in multiple sources (despite various lengths) still speak to significant coverage in the WP:GNG guideline. Honestly, given the shape of the article now, as well as the other sources that have been identified in the AFD, I'm really surprised so many people still don't feel notability has been established... — Hunter Kahn 23:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't arbitrarily add sources with long mentions just to demonstrate notability. - Fair enough, but it would be helpful if you could provide links to such sources in the AfD discussion. I searched for sources on the WP:VGRS search engine and Google News, and the most in-depth coverage I could find in RS was the Polygon article I linked above, which is not very substantial. Regarding reliable sources, I think we should hold sources to a higher standard when evaluating whether or not something passes GNG. It may not be a big deal if some minor, uncontroversial detail is cited to a clickbait site, but I don't think we should judge a subject's encyclopedic notability based on sites that publish articles like "Jayden Federline Promised To Share Gossip About His Mom, Britney Spears" or "Suzy Cortez Squats It Out In Gold Heels And Revealing Red Thong". SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect SpicyMilkBoy's analyze of the sources is spot on. I additionally endorse the reversal of the original Keep close, which was primarily based around the addition of PRIMARY sources and UNRELIABLE sources. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect—others above have already picked apart the sources but I concur with their assessments of the threshold of notability not being met as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This could very well become an entry in the List of generation VII Pokémon, in a similar fashion to Oshawott. Some sources are not reliable enough and the "reception" section is poor, in general. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From the discussions that have taken place, here are the prime arguments:
  • Incineroar is iconic enough to have a designated article.
  • The current article has many sources, most of them primary.
    • Some arguments suggest that the use of primary doen't justify notability.
    • Others say that these ources are completely fine.
  • The current article may or may not compy with WP:GNG. This argument is back-and-fourth.
  • The use of citations is a possible WP:BOMBARDMENT.

This list shouldn't change anyone's mind about things. These just seem to be the main concerns.--Diriector_Doc┝Talk
Contribs━━━┥ 03:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The idea that primary sources contribute to GNG needs to be abandoned by anyone stating it. WP:GNG is very clear that sources must be reliable, secondary and independent. This list of "prime arguments" is a little misleading since it echoes your own Keep !vote. -- ferret (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP A paid staff member of Polygon [10] gave significant enough coverage, plus other sources mention it. Dream Focus 03:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Polygon article has already been brought up, first and foremost. The two paragraphs, as SpicyMilkBoy has stated, are bloated and chatty. It doesn't constitute notability. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 04:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know why you consider what the woman wrote to "bloated and chatty", I not seeing it that way at all. She gave significant coverage of the character, talked about it and her opinions of it. Significant is context not length. Dream Focus 10:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two paragraphs is not significant coverage even if the context of the article wasn't just news about a video game getting multiple new characters. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that the two paragraphs ramble off-topic and say little actually about the subject itself. I mean come on, are you really proposing keep based off two paragraphs of content in one source. I know you skew heavily on the Keep side, but even you must realize that’s pretty flimsy argument to keep an article... Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • The character gets headlines and some mention at [11] and other reliable sources. I look at how much information is in article, and it has references aplenty, so I say keep it. I also find it odd that this AFD originally ended in KEEP then someone complained and it got reopened so those who want it done can keep arguing with people who dared disagree with them. Dream Focus 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you just contradicted your own statement with "some mention", because that's all this article really boils down to; random mentions in articles for other games, and unreliable blogs or sketchy "journalist" sites. This article is just full of useless fluff to try and bloat it and make it look better than it really is. Seems to be working, since people are now just trying to yell WP:ITSNOTABLE despite their arguments being picked apart and proven false by other editors. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • First off, there’s nothing wrong with asking someone to relist an AFD. There’s literally an official process for it - WP:DELETIONREVIEW - but starting off with just asking the closer is equally fine. (And they were not harassed, I asked them once, politely, and it was immediately honored.) Secondly, I don’t know how you could possibly argue that a relist wasn’t warranted in a situation where 10+ new participants joined in after the relist, a vast majority with a stance different from the close. Look, you’re free to want to keep the article, but this misconduct stuff you seem to be passive-aggressively alluding to is pretty inappropriate, especially for an experienced editor as yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Re: the sources, WP:GNG only requires that sources have to be non-trivial coverage, they don't have to focus exclusively on the subject. The policy specifically says "it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". I do feel a lot of the reliable sources that discuss this topic have been too easily dismissed, and too much has been made about how many sentences/paragraphs/etc some of the sources use to address this topic. That's really not how the policy is meant to be interpreted. — Hunter Kahn 22:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, that’s where the aspect of consensus comes in, because that’s what the “redirect stance” people are saying, that what little coverage is from reliable sources, is trivial. That two short paragraphs that ramble off-subject are not significant coverage, but trivial. Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Im new and idc about sources, as long as it is well written. 49.149.103.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think redirect has rough consensus by now, but: REDIRECT WHERE TO, folks? I'm not being paid enough to try to read minds.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation VII Pokemon. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and if this redirect takes places, are we merging some of the content as well? I ask because even if you eliminated the content cited by sources that some folks in this discussion have considered questionable, you'd still end up with a "Notes" entry on this list that is 15 to 20 times larger than basically any other entry, which would seem to create WP:TOOLONG and WP:SUBARTICLE issues. Or the alternative would be to just ax pretty much all of the content, even that which is attributed to the definitely reliable sources, which seems like a loss to our readers. Which of those options would you support, or is there another? (Obviously another option would be splitting it into it's own article, but obviously the redirect voters don't think that's appropriate.) — Hunter Kahn 20:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the more noteworthy Pokemon in these lists have small tidbits about their reception, if any. Just incorporate them that way. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I guess that'll be what ends up happening, which is a shame. I know some of the sourcing has been brought into question, but as it stands right now, the Incineroar article has almost 1300 words of content (excluding the lead) about various aspects of the character, and I confess I don't really see the logic in depriving our readers of the properly-sourced portions of that content, and just giving them a list entry with a couple sentences instead. Looking at the other Pokemon on the list you shared, it just seems like there's more to say about this character than the others. But I get that I'm only one voice in the discussion. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 11 March 2020 (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/Incineroar&oldid=1182474856"