Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimikyu

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. There can be exceptions to the "no Pokémon can have their own article" rule; Mimikyu is an example of that. It is shown that this article passes WP:GNG, regardless of what the "rule" is, and therefore can be kept. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mimikyu[edit]

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

WP has a very long history of creating unwarranted articles for individual Pokémon, inevitably merged back to their parent lists. All Pokémon have some sort of routine coverage—the Internet thinks they're cute/fat/scary/whatever—and those passing mentions do not count towards the general notability guideline. This Pokémon has routine coverage, similar to that of every other Pokémon, except we redirect those to their appropriate lists where they can be developed and spin out summary style.

But the easiest tell here are the sources themselves, which cover Mimikyu as one Pokemon among others in a list. Our own coverage is proportional to the sources, and when they treat a point as one in a list, so do we. The majority of the Reception is to say that Mimikyu is scary/creepy and that fans like it for that reason. Good: put it in the list's section. I would not consider Comicbook.com, Inverse, or RocketNews24 blogs to be reliable sources. A redirect to the main list would be sufficient. czar 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In creating the Mimikyu article, I kept in mind that I would not do so if I could not find significant coverage of the Pokémon. The notion that the article's sources only cover Mimikyu as "one Pokemon among others in a list" is only partially true. While the article does include citations to sources which list Mimikyu amongst other Pokémon, it also includes citations to The Escapist, Kotaku, Polygon, Paste, and The Mary Sue that solely mention Mimikyu. I would not consider Inverse nor Comicbook.com to be unreliable sources, as Inverse has its own Wikipedia article and Comicbook.com is not a blog. RocketNews24, however, is admittedly questionable. I would not have created the article if I did not believe with certainty that the character is notable. This is why I have not and will not create articles for Pokémon such as, say, Farfetch'd or Aipom. –Matthew - (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article now also has a citation to an Inquisitr article that is also focused on Mimikyu, rather than simply including Mimikyu as one character amongst several. –Matthew - (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – To me, it seems Mimikyu has received significant coverage, as multiple reliable sources has written an article about it specifically. These are not just standard news messages either: sources even comment on its portrayal in the anime series. The Pokémon seems to be highly popular, so I see no issue in keeping this article compared to other Pokémon, though I understand why people may feel the article is made too early: some more sources to create some more depth in this article would be very nice. ~Mable (chat) 14:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Pikachu, just look at it, that's what it is right? Keep. The Paste, Kotaku, and Inquistr articles are all focused exclusively about Mimikyu, which establish notability. Many of the other sources also do mention it alongside others, combined, this is enough to meet our notability guidelines. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable enough per everyone.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move out-of-universe info into the list. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 00:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could we please have a discussion of the actual content? The three articles mentioned above are gossipy and says little more than that the character is both cute and scary (as mentioned in the nom). This coverage is on par with that of almost every other Pokemon from the original 1–150, but we cover those in their dedicated sections of the list because there isn't actually any depth/content to the critical response that isn't shallow repetition of the same point. Yes, the character's name is in the title of those sources, but what exactly about this character is notable? (Also I wouldn't treat the Inquistr article as a reliable source—the website is low-quality reposts of news content from elsewhere, traditional clickbait/fluff like early and occasional HuffPo.) czar 06:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is the character discussed thoroughly in a reliable source? Why, tada, that's notability for ya. –Matthew - (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum This is a content issue. No admin tools are needed or requested. Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Unscintillating: Admin tools? No one has mentioned those? ~Mable (chat) 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears that you want to say something, so please proceed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2016 (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.