Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meltan and Melmetal (2nd 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 delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meltan and Melmetal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

The last double entry Pokemon of doubious notability. (Previous AFD from 2018 was sadly almost all WP:ITSNOTABLE/WP:KEEPER).

This one doesn't have any lasting reception, but it has a bit of a (fan) media buzz around its introduction (in 2018 in the PGo). The model was leaked early which generated a bit of news ([1], [2]), shortly after it was shown in a trailer/press release ([3], [4], [5]) that don't really go beyond being a description/rewrites of press release. There is also a claim that "Within hours of the release of the Let's Go! games, Meltan became a trending topic on social media for Pokémon players" ([6]) but it's just the usual gacha note that 'new unit was released, players are expected to whale for it'. (There is one source about some short-lived memes it generated to: [7]). For anyone who knows this type of games (and there are hundreds of those, PGo is just a bit more prominent) there is always buzz about new characters and they are the main revenue source for those freemium games. So this seems like a run-of-the-mill WP:ONEEVENT game character that got a bit of buzz when it was released and that's it. (And the leaks from datamines are also normal these days, pretty much all new characters for such games are leaked weeks to even months in advance, it's a semi-official way of generating buzz among the fans). Anyway, other than the coverage of the (not rare) leak, the rest of the sources are the usual plot summary/game guides ([8], [9]).

All that said, the trend in the last few years is that larger freemium/gacha games (Fate/Grand Order, Genshin Impact, etc.) generate a ton of low-quality buzz about its constant mini-updates/characters. In fact, there are games out there which don't even have Wikipedia articles that generate dozens of similar articles (just google news for "My Hero Academia Strongest Hero", for example, released just ~2 weeks ago, for example - it is almost certainly notable, but is not even mentioned on Wikipedia yet). I am actually positively surprised we don't have few dozen pages for characters of such games (doubly so when they are part of larger franchises)... but I digress. Except that for anyone who follows video game news these days, similar levels of coverage are generated even for minor updates for larger games like Cyberpunk and so on. This Pokemon is not more notable than an update to its main game - and in the end, it is exactly that: an update. And game updates should not have stand-alone articles.

Anyway, I suggest the usual merge and redirect to List of generation VII Pokémon. There is a table there with notes section which can summarize all what we have in our article anyway. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe (Oinkers42) gave their opinion about this topic on its own merits. I am certain the whole point of WP:OSE is to encourage us to judge each and every hypothetical article of such a nature on a case by case basis, so no, the floodgates argument doesn't hold up in my opinion.
  • Delete per WP:N, this topic received a flurry of coverage over the course of about three minutes, and after that has received nothing significant. As coverage was not sustained, this is not notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whatever list of Pokémon they appear on per Devonian Wombat. Link20XX (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of generation VII Pokémon per nom. To respond to the essay about game updates, I would put them in a similar category as TV episodes. Popular TV show episodes will always get a lot of coverage when the episode air discussing the episode and speculating about future plot points. But we don't write articles for all of them unless the coverage is persistent or particularly significant. Same idea applies here. Jumpytoo Talk 19:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't believe the nominator's interpretation of WP:ONEEVENT is correct as it describes an inclusion criteria for BLP articles, and sourcing guideline and rules for BLP articles are very different from general fictional topics. This character has made a further appearance in Pokemon Sword and Shield, a main series game which is chronologically released after Pokemon Go on an unrelated platform so its debut isn't a one time thing as suggested by the nominator. I agree with (Oinkers42)'s interpretation of WP:NTEMP. Haleth (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my last AFD argument. It's still non-notable Pokemoncruft, things have not changed a bit.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with the nom's source review. And this isn't a search term worth keeping—it would be fine to just separately redirect Meltan and Melmetal to their respective list entries. czar 21:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per czar. The redirects that they propose would be more useful and I do not think this is really a beneficial search term. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor Pokemon species with trivia stuffs. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sustained WP:SIGCOV and not a plausible search term either Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 23 June 2021 (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/Meltan_and_Melmetal_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1030187643"