Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauline (Nintendo character)

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 keep. Consensus is that the character is notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline (Nintendo character)[edit]

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

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

From what I can tell, this article shouldn't have been approved through AfC and fails WP:GNG. Its reception section is very thin and doesn't provide context for why the character is notable. It's mostly about the song, which is not the character (and would probably be better off on the page of Kate Higgins instead). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the reception section is confusingly about some song instead of the character. Fails WP:NFICTION. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC) PS. New sources seem to suggest notability, withdrawing my delete vote. But the article should be tagged with {{notability}} unless the reception section is improved with the sources found here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hello, I'm the creator of the draft and no this shouldn't have passed AfC. I created it with the intention of completing it, however I had a problem with finding references. Unless some one can find good sources on Pauline, I think it should be deleted. CaptainGalaxy 09:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Donkey Kong Characters. Character is covered in sufficient detail there, and is a reasonable enough search term to make it worth keeping some information. I had a look at the sources present, but they seem insufficient (from the excerpts available online) to make a full article. If anyone has access to the relevant books, feel free to say how much they contain. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to List of Donkey Kong Characters#Pauline. Keep per additional sourcing provided by Trekker. A few are of dubious quality but the remainder is sufficient to demonstrate notability. Coverage about the song can be done under the reception section for Super Mario Odyssey, if it isn't there already. Haleth (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - not independently notable from the games. Over half of the (weak) reception section is about the song "Jump Up Superstar" rather than the subject, and probably belongs at Kate Higgins or Super Mario Odyssey. Sergecross73 msg me 13:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing my original "redirect" stance since sources were eventually found, but still can't advocate "keep" in this sorry state. It needs to be put into a draft until someone can write an encyclopedic article with reliable sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but retool reception - several sources that are about the character of Pauline, reception section definitely needs a rework, but it seems fixable. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retool it with what though? It's easy to go and say "make it better" but you've got to illustrate an actual path forward if you want to provide a valid/persuasive keep argument. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it's apparent now, but at the time of writing that response, no one, including the editor I was responding to, had presented any valid sourcing yet. Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Redirect - As the AFC reviewer of the draft. If the creator of the draft intended to withdraw it from review, then it can be cut down to a redirect again (which is what it was before it was reviewed.

  • Comment - It seems that my signature to the above disappeared. Striking it anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As per above. Akronowner (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is everyone so keyed into the reception section? Yes, that is the easiest way to show notability, but there are other real-world aspects to fictional elements like their creation. I think the best piece towards GNG is currently the Polygon article, which isn't in the reception. That said, I have no strong feelings on a standalone article vice list entry. There is significant real-world content to merge, though. -2pou (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, you really answered your own question here - it's the easiest (but not required) way to demonstrate notability through Wikipedia's notability standards and we're falling short on the number of sources needed to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE in particular states that a fictional item must not be totally in-universe. Beyond the simple GNG fail, there is also the issue of it lacking context in terms of critical reception of the character.ZX°CVBNM (TALK) 04:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of over 40 years of history and more notable than princess Peach as she made the concept of having a character to rescue notable in the first place. I am ashamed deletíonists are still destroying cultural histories on Wikipedia's anniversary year. 213.205.198.237 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)— 213.205.198.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Stances that don't cite any valid policy are generally disregarded or given far less weight in the final decision, for the record. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More notable than Peach ? Not at all. But if I understand right, the issue here is that we do not have enough infos in “Reception”. Instead of deleting the page, it would be much better to add more elements ? I mean deleting the page sounds like abandoning a car because it’s out of fuel, it does not make sense. Just make some research and add more infos. The song seems fine to me since it’s part of the “Legacy” of the character. Some pages have less elements and are being published... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.25.100 (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC) — 86.220.25.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Has coverage in reliable sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.★Trekker (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    *Treker, Hmmm. Not bad. There are few sentences in academic source (thesis 'Beyond princess peach: Gender issues and the boy's club hegemony of video game development' that are somewhat analytical if brief/in passing). This passing mention [1] can be used to call their romance a classic of video games, I guess. And this academic work (as well as this) mentions the hack that some of your sources discuss about making her playable. There are a lot of passing mentions, dozens, and I don't have time to check which may contain significant analysis that the snippets didn't show. Overall I think there is enough about her from the feminist-style discourse to argue she is notable. I'll adjust move vote accordingly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trekker has found reliable sources giving significant coverage to this character. Dream Focus 15:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to the coverage from sources found by Trekker. Enjoyer — talk 12:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current article status is weeaaaaak but the sources mentioned above could make something decent. TarkusABtalk/contrib 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I almost wonder if sending it back to draftspace again is a good compromise. Some of these sources are helpful, but the current status is awful. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats a valid argument that against deletion, not draftifying. And it's about a recently-become-popular Mario character, not something obscure. A note to WP:VG would likely drum up interest. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I rarely see topics get more attention in drafts space than in mainspace. I feel like there is a large risk that if Wikipedia starts making it a habit of draftifying clearly notable topics because the articles are sub par then we risk losing edit histories if the drafts get deleted due to lack of interest.★Trekker (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Trekker. If I didn't submit an abandoned draft, this article wouldn't exist. 49.151.185.63 (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole reason we've had those long, drawn out discussion is because this was submitted too soon. Despite the difference in opinions on how to handle this, just about everyone concedes this is undercooked... Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sergecross73, Indeed. After reviewing the sources, I think it is notable, but the current version is low level WP:FANCRUFT. The notability significantly rests on the discourse of her as a 'damsel in distress' trope and the criticism/attempts to overcome it, which the submitted draft totally missed, focusing as usual on the fancrufty 'fictional biography/list of appearances in games'. Wikipedia =/= fandom wikia. We need to show how the topic matters outside the game world. Well, I hope the creator learned that lesson, will fix this and will continue to submit better pieces. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem that an emergent consensus is forming in this discussion for the article to be kept, and also to improve this article as soon as possible. The article creator @Captain Galaxy: said they wanted to finish the article but couldn't find the sources. Now that Trekker has helped locate the sources, rewriting aspects of the article to better comply with the MOS for a video game article shouldn't be an issue now. I'd like to know if Captain Galaxy is still interested in fine tuning the article's contents with the new sources to address quality concerns; if not, I don't mind putting myself forward and improve in mainspace instead of having it sent it back to draft space. It won't take long. Haleth (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as the AFC acceptor. I respectfully disagree with User:Sergecross73 in that I think that sending this back to draft space is very much the wrong answer. Either Keep or Merge. Sending it back to draft space will be a message that we, the AFD community, don't have a clue. (We probably don't have a collective clue, being an assembly of clueful editors who disagree, but we don't need to send a message to that effect.)
      • This was the first female character and first damsel in distress in the collection of Nintendo game characters. That is reason enough for an article.
      • Sometimes we, the AFD community, get hung up on details with regard to when to keep and when to delete sub-articles.
      • The WP:Pokémon Test applies, but I am not sure what its application is.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Robert McClenon: I tweaked your post to include the WP namespace. Hope you don't mind. Additionally, I'm not sure if you remember !voting before, but you should strike one of them.
    Side comment: I think this AfD has shown that your AfC accept was fine. Whether the article is kept or redirected, the back and forth discussion clearly shows that it met AfC's directive of having a 50% chance of survival at AfD. It was passed through to a more flushed out decision that comes from the group of people vice a single AfC reviewer. -2pou (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I only commented earlier, but given the potential sources presented, enough clearly WP:NEXIST to show notability. Given that GNG has been demonstrated, improvements to the article should be left in the main space where more editors can actually have eyes on it as opposed to pretty much only the AfD participants here knowing about the draft, most of whom will forget about it and move on to the next discussion. Wikipedia is a WP:WIP after all. I'm pretty sure someone had an essay about improving things in main space to this effect, but I can't recall. If anyone does, please ping me with it for my recollection. -- 2pou (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing provided above.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:58, 28 January 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/Pauline_(Nintendo_character)&oldid=1003474653"