Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koopa Troopa

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 keep‎. WP:SNOW keep, there is now overwhelming consensus that it is notable. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koopa Troopa[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Reception section for this article at present is incredibly small, and per a BEFORE search, I found practically nothing else on these guys. A lot of sources mention them in brief, but there is very little actual commentary on them in these sources. As it stands now, I seriously doubt that the Koopa Troopas have enough sources to build an article. I'd suggest a redirect to the Mario characters list as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the detailed and well sourced concept and creation section, which shows the characters impact on the franchise. As I've reminded many times before, reception sections are not the only way to proving notability. A common way, but not the only. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't looked into additional sources myself enough to give a recommendation at this point, but I just wanted to point out that all but one source in the Concept and Creation section are primary sources - they are all just from the "Iwata Asks" series on official Nintendo websites. And per the WP:GNG, in order to be able to help establish notability, sources need to be "independent of the subject". Rorshacma (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mario franchise characters#Enemy characters - even if notable it clearly fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE with a very lacking reception that feels incredibly stretched-out. No prejudice towards recreation if someone manages to find more reception. IMO there is very little difference with the issues that led Boo (character) to also be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to understand how INDISCRIMINATE applies to this. Can you better explain? Sergecross73 msg me 00:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It lacks any reception besides one IGN list entry. The "Passionfruit" site is dubiously notable, and the rest belongs in Legacy not Reception. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's...not what INDISCRIMINATE itself refers to. None of its points apply to this. And Passionfruit is part of The Daily Dot, which is reliable per WP:VG/S Sergecross73 msg me 15:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I will change my opinion to keep since things seem to be going in that direction. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just wasn't really sure about its current state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serge's rationale. I don't really feel I can add on more from that though. Captain Galaxy 16:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recently, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ made an argument about another article list that "if I had known merging would have cut down this much information I wouldn't have voted to merge". That stuck with me, and I feel that is more a valid concern here. There is clearly a lot of development and legacy information in this article and how it impacted the development of the series, and when you look at the list itself there is no feasible way to maintain this information over there (the enemy sections are all short and brief), and trying to brute force it in will create a weird instance of WP:UNDUE when you compare it to how the rest of the sections are structured given there's not the same level of development info for those other enemies. One could argue too for a "death by 1000 cuts" approach: is it possible to illustrate a character is so recognizable that its notable regardless of a lack of discussion?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Sergecross's statement. I do think that the Koopa Troopa deserve their own page, mainly because they've been in the franchise (almost) since the start. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find what Kung Fu Man said compelling - often, merging can be fairly destructive, and in this case, I find it difficult to see a reasonable happy middleground between giving Koopa Troopa's dev info and impact too little or too much weight on the list. While there definitely should be more info on the article, the sheer amount of info that would be lost in the merge makes it feel like no one would actually benefit. To me, I feel like we sometimes treat "having an article" as a status. Would a reader benefit from having Koopa Troopa info either dominating the enemies list or simply being absent? It's important that we don't let such a concept be used to justify the splitting of articles with hardly anything to them, but this clearly has something that's lost in a merge. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's valid concerns made over just merging as Koopa Troopas have significantly more references detailing them than say, a Podoboo (or most Super Mario enemies for the matter). Plus, the current article is honestly fine as it is with the only problem being the reference formatting for some of the last few references used but otherwise, another instance of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source discussion above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:01, 25 April 2024 (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.