Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soda Popinski (2nd nomination)

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 merge to List of Punch-Out!! characters#Soda Popinski. The discussion since the post-DRV relisting hasn't really changed anything. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Popinski[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)

This article's AFD was closed as redirect in 2019 after its sources were analyzed in detail. The article was recreated, but nothing has changed - the reception section is entirely either trivial mentions or listicles, and this article fails WP:GNG on its own. Hopefully another AfD will cause it to be a protected redirect that cannot be recreated over and over. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Russia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You are entitled to your opinions and well within your right to disagree over whether this article should be split back out from the main list, but your statement that "nothing has changed" is disingenuous and factually incorrect. Anyone can compare the diffs and recognize that the current version of the article is heavily rewritten compared to the version that was nominated for AfD back in 2019. A major source that that was not present in previous versions of the article, is an entry about the character in a 2017 book about video game characters, which extends to 2 pages' worth and addresses the topic directly and in detail. That is not a trivial source, and neither are the sources I have cited under "Further reading", which refutes the previous nominator's assertion that the article could never be more then a WP:PERMASTUB. I do not currently have full access to the journal articles cited under the section, but from the previews I could see, the contents that are directly relevant are not passing or trivial mentions. I reiterate, significant coverage is defined "as more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", so these sources do demonstrate that the character has been discussed within contexts outside of a simple reading of his role as a video game boss. Certainly, on the same level of cultural relevance as Glass Joe. Calling for salting and hoping it will stay that way because it allegedly may be "recreated over and over" is also incorrect, and strikes me as bad faith, because this article was only recreated once following the 2019 AfD, which was also the first time the question of the topic's notability was ever scrutinized. Haleth (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have to spell it out, I meant that nothing has changed with regards to the article's sourcing or significance thereof. If nothing had literally changed at all in the article, then it would be grounds for simply turning it back into a redirect, not sending it again to AfD.

Overall, when you strip out everything that is dependent on trivial coverage, you get nothing that cannot be included in List of Punch-Out!! characters while fitting in a single paragraph.

I think it's obvious that if the article was already recreated once, it can be recreated numerous times later as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say is, I disagree with your assessment with regards to the sourcing and significance as I think it is incorrect, but I don’t expect you to ever change your mind. With regards to article recreations, you speak as if it is an unacceptable anomaly and opinions expressed in prior discussions are sacrosanct. On numerous occasions, you and I have recreated content for articles that were absent or removed from mainspace in the past as a result of contentious disputes, quality of said articles notwithstanding. Haleth (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - The character is still not independently notable. While the current version appears to have copious sources, none of them are significant coverage at all. Many, such as the Guardian articles, are literally one sentence mentions that simply state "his name was changed in the US version". Most of the rest are either general reviews/discussions of Punch-Out, where the character is just briefly mentioned, or are "top ten" style lists. And even those "top-ten" style lists don't have significant coverage - for example, the "Four Examples of Russian Music in American Popular Culture" article is, again, a single sentence mention of the character. There is, quite simply, not enough significant coverage that demonstrates any kind of notability that would justify splitting this back out from the main Punch-Out character article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge. The 'reception and analysis' section is suprisingly serious, with next no focus on listicles and an interesting discussion of how this character embodies some stereotypes, something that was noticed by numerous sources. The problem is WP:SIGCOV, but I also didn't check the cited book which claims to have relevant content on two pages. Now, what really matters is not the character, but the issue of stereotypes in the game, or wider context, but if this stays, we don't have to be ashamed that we are keeping fancruft. If the analysis is deemed to be streteched (SIGCOV fail), then it should still be preserved by being merged somewhere. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do own a physical copy of the book. The entry is specifically about Soda Popinski, not the characters of Punch Out as an ensemble. It runs to a total of 3 pages, though the actual content is roughly equal to two pages' worth of volume. Haleth (talk) 06:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth Just a note that since you never pinged me, I never saw your reply until now... it would be good if we could see a scan of these pages, not to verify what you said, but to see whether there is useful content (non-plot) there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, I don't see a point in making the effort to scan the exact pages from my end, since the consensus is consolidating around a definite merge-and-redirect, and I am personally ok with the emerging consensus. However, you could peruse the book through Google Preview and judge the contents of some of the collated articles that show up in said preview. That said, there is no tangible plot whatsoever in most of the Punch Out games so Soda Popinski's entry is entirely about what his portrayal represents, the background of the supposed Japanese antipathy towards Russian culture and how depictions in Japanese pop culture tend to reflect that. Someone else in this discussion called it a "glorified listicle" with "two page mentions", and that is blatantly incorrect: the source is a book with a reputable publisher and edited by a pair of academics, which collects about 100 standalone articles from various authors that analyzes fictional elements from a real world perspective. Each article is about the same length as a typical feature article published by an established RS like this one. Haleth (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth The book is available through Z-library, but I am having some trouble accessing it now (GBooks is mosty useless, I get only two snippets). I am leaning towards agreeing this may be SIGCOV, and given this and all the other sources, my preference is for weak keep vs merge. If only we had one more good source for SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Punch-Out!! characters#Soda Popinski (i.e., restore redirect). Everything that is said in this article can be said with greater concision in the existing section without any loss in fidelity. That Popinski was designed as a stereotype applies throughout that character list page, not specific to this individual character. Inclusion in this "100 greatest game characters" book, for notability purposes, is arbitrary. The question is what source material warrants a content split, and when I check these sources, all I see are brief mentions edited together to give the appearance that the commentary is more voluminous than it is. Remove the trivia and anything that needs to be said fits within the parent list's section. Take the few academic sources that mention this instance and cover it in context of the series' characters, which is why that list article exists. czar 08:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with @Haleth:'s assessment here. The article complies with the spirit of notability, being well-sourced and having multiple sources of non-trivial coverage, enough to build a small encyclopedic article. Soda Popinski also has real-world coverage that extends outside the games, as demonstrated in the article. Also, since the characters from Punch-Out article is over 70KB in size, that plays another factor in this being an appropriate spin-out. Despite the previous consensus for a redirect, there should be no prejudice towards a recreation if there's an improvement, which this article now clearly shows. Keep in mind that consensus can change, and a 2019 redirect may not necessarily be a 2022 redirect. MoonJet (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is not going to be notable, it should not be spun out regardless of the parent article's size. The parent article should simply be pared down instead.

Of course, a lot of characters are going to have real-world coverage, but your assertion that it has "multiple sources of non-trivial coverage" conflicts with the facts, unless you can note the WP:THREE sources that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this character is notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if the parent article is that big, a little more leeway should be given. Notability, while important, is not the only factor for determining if something should get an article. But regardless, notability is fully satisfied here.

Real-world coverage is a good way in establishing notability though. "Trivia" means unimportant, so if a character receives real-world significance, then it is not trivial coverage, regardless if said source is short. The fact that Soda Popinski placed in a top 100 video game characters of all-time list alone shows he has some importance outside the Punch-Out series.

Three sources? Well, let's start with the aforementioned "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" source. Then there's the sources controversy around the character, like GamePro and The Escapist. The character even has a bar named after him, which multiple sources mention. If that's not real-world significance, then I don't know what is.

While three sources is the recommended minimum, keep in mind that just two sources are also fine if one of them is really good, which I would argue the "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" source is. WP:GNG notes merely "multiple sources," which is anything more than one. MoonJet (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe it meets WP:GNG. The article has significantly improved since the prior AFD and, just because there are a lack of sources talking about exclusively the character, it does not mean that the sources are worthless in proving notability. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's exactly what it means. WP:SIGCOV is not optional in proving notability, and without enough significant coverage in reliable sources, the character is not standalone notable. What is there is mostly trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was stating that a source can be not trivial, but also be not solely focused around the character. Those two are not mutually exclusive. (Oinkers42) (talk) 12:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As every other "keep" vote said. — Smuckola (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EVERYONEELSE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is an advice essay. But since we are on the subject of opinion pieces about discussion etiquette, I think a lot of people would agree that Wikipedia discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with you. Whether Smuckola's opinion hold any weight is up to the closer, not you. Haleth (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "it's just an advice essay" is less discrediting than you may think. In fact, only essays that follow established policy are allowed in Wikipedia namespace. Otherwise, it would have to be moved to userspace for being an opinion that runs contrary to Wikipedia policy. That means this essay lines up with the actual policy such as WP:NHC. I should add that you are currently accusing me of WP:BADFAITH for simply giving sentence long, perfectly rational and non-combative responses stating my case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Most coverage appears to be trivial and the remaining useful sources can be adequately summarized in a character list. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment after relisting: He's a minor character who has appeared in two video games. The references are bottom of the barrel listicles and passing mentions. WP:THREE applies here. If three quality sources exist that are substantially about this character, surely they would have been made by now. When and if they do, then we can revisit this topic. Until then, merging is the way to go. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge there is something resembling a proper article, and not just a stub. But a lot of the reception section is cobbled from WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Remembering a character as a stereotype is a pretty legitimate and serious treatment, and it's well sourced, but maybe falls short of WP:SIGCOV. In an ideal world this would be further improved but I would still WP:PRESERVE this and give it more time. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I appreciate Haleth's efforts at improving the article, but Czar's comments here are the ones that hit home to me: Once the trivial mentions are pared down, all the sourced content in this article can be easily covered at List of Punch-Out!! characters#Soda Popinski. Moreover, presenting the article's key point - that Soda Popinski is designed as a stereotype - as part of a standalone article for the character implies to the reader that this aspect is in some way unique to Soda Popinski, when in actuality it is an aspect of the Punch-Out characters as a whole. Put another way, I'm not seeing anything here to indicate that Soda Popinski has true notability independent of the Punch-Out cast. Having a bar named after him doesn't cut it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I don't think it has notability independent of Punch-Out Andrevan@ 00:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was originally closed as merge, but overturned at DRV. Relisting for another week. Before commenting, I would suggest reading the DRV to get an idea of what issues need to be focused on in the next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The DRV was out of order for never notifying this AfD. (2) The DRV's argument is that we need to "refute specific sources" when the argument this whole time has been to look past the lack of major sources and consider the trivial sources together as a whole? (3) What sources do y'all need to see specifically addressed? The "WP:THREE" sources given above were clearly inadequate. "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" is basically a summary of all that can be said about the character, and our case has been that this info can be easily contained within the existing character list. So we relisted this discussion for GamePro and The Escapist? The former mentions Popinski in two sentences and is the definition of a passing mention. The latter is unreliable source and is also a single sentence. Really not seeing what has any ambiguity about this. czar 16:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was never notified about any DRV either. I would have voted to uphold the result if it wasn't purposely kept secret. There is no reason to overturn? Reading it now it seems like a pure "I didn't like the result therefore it is bad". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Escapist is not listed as unreliable, but situational. It is also not published in the "caution" period between October 2017 and July 2018.
(Oinkers42) (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I believe the Escapist article is trivial coverage. It is an article about Punch-Out's racial stereotypes as a whole, which is perfectly fit for the reception section of Punch-Out or as part of the list of characters, but Soda Popinski is only mentioned as one of numerous examples and is not given any special significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the GamePro source is technically a passing mention, it does note importance of the character. As already pointed out, the Escapist is, for the most part, reliable, per consensus at WP:VG/S (the article was not published between October 2017 and July 2018).

These two sources, on their own, I would agree are not enough, but in conjunction with the "100 Greatest Video Game Characters" source and the sources that talk about the bar named after him, I think are inline the spirit of notability.

I also found a source from Kotaku discussing him. Yes, its a listicle of Punch-Out characters, but again, it's being used in conjunction with other sources.

You could say that notability doesn't guarantee an article, and that's true. But at same time, what is the benefit in having Soda Popinski in a Punch-Out character list article over his own article? After all, the aim here is to improve the project, and I'm certainly not convinced that him being crammed into a character list, when he already has a decently detailed article, an improvement.
As for the DRV, I have no idea why this AFD wasn't notified of it. I was actually wondering the same thing myself. I probably should have left a message to the original closer of this (TigerShark), but at the same time, he seems to have been mostly MIA lately. It was not my intention to keep it "secret." MoonJet (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who initiated the DRV, it is YOUR responsibility to do the notifications (see steps 3, 4, and 5 of Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review). I'll take it on faith that you simply forgot or missed those instructions when opening the DRV. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Kotaku article is literally a listing of every character in the franchise. That is less evidence of any independent notability that Soda Popinski has, and more evidence that the proper way to cover him would be in our series character list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the original closer has largely been MIA. I definitely did miss step 4 though. I thought the original closer had to leave that note. This was the first DRV I've ever opened, so please cut me some slack. So I'll keep this in mind if I open any other DRVs in the future, which probably won't be any time soon, since I almost didn't open this one.

That's why I said the Kotaku source wouldn't be enough on its own, Rorshacma. MoonJet (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm more persuaded by Czar's stance in this one. The coverage is weak and seemingly bloated as an attempt to cover that. It could be condensed into the character list with little lost. (For example, a sentence that says "Publications found him to be a Russian stereotype.(ref 1)(ref 2)(ref 3) rather than the redundant current format of "Publication 1 found him to be a stereotype. (Ref 1). Publication 2 found him to be a stereotype too. (Ref 2). Publication 3 said he was a stereotype of sorts.(ref 3)" etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have expanded my comment above, post-relisting. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was unaware of the DRV and that the initial closing had been overturned for a relist until now, but I will say that my stance of restoring the redirect to the main character list has not changed. I have never been of the opinion that a bunch of pieces of trivial coverage in a couple different sources adds up to cumulatively become significant coverage. And after over a month and a relist, that is still all we have on the character - a bunch of extremely trivial (in many cases, nothing more than a single sentence or two) bits of information on the character. And almost always in the context of discussing Punch-Out and its characters as a whole. That latter fact is a pretty clear indication that the character is adequately covered in the main character list article here, and not split out into a separate article. I agree with the initial closing of this AFD, and if the proper notifications for the DRV had gone out, I strongly suspect it would not have been overturned. Rorshacma (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never been of the opinion that a bunch of pieces of trivial coverage in a couple different sources adds up to cumulatively become significant coverage."

I don't necessarily disagree. After all, a bunch of trivial sources is still trivial, right? However, I do disagree that the sources used to prove notability are trivial. The "Development," "Reception" and "Legacy" sections give important details on the character covered in the sources, most notably his origins, the controversy surrounding his original name and the bar named after him.

"And almost always in the context of discussing Punch-Out and its characters as a whole."

There's a whole paragraph under "Reception" discussing him outside the context of Punch-Out, and a section discussing him outside the series as well. This shows that Soda Popinski has some significance, rather than being just another Punch-Out character. MoonJet (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per czar, Axem, and Serge. There's no significant coverage; everything here is passing mentions and listicles, none about Soda Popinski in particular. All the content here could easily fit into List of Punch-Out!! characters without losing anything. JOE BRO 64 12:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep the figure is enduring and the article meets ~~WP:BASIC~~ WP:GNG at least. Reminder that WP:THREE is not a guideline or policy, it is an essay. We should not be using it to exclude articles. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THREE is an essay that has nothing that conflicts with established policy, it's just a clarification of it. Saying "show me proof that it passes GNG" and "show me WP:THREE" is essentially the same thing, just with a helpful explanation because many don't understand it.

Soda Popinski is, obviously, not an actual person, so WP:BASIC does not apply. As a fictional character we have to consider whether the character would be a better fit for a list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and correction @Zxcvbnm:. A bit rusty over here. I changed the guideline referenced. We have a decent article here, and I believe it is good for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It must also be noted that three sources is the recommended minimum. Two sources also suffice if one or both are substantial enough (which I would argue his two-age entry in 100 Greatest Video Game Characters is). MoonJet (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you would argue, but I heavily doubt that any admin on this site would agree with that assessment - that a two page mention in a glorified listicle is enough to merit an entire article when almost no other secondary sources exist. I have had articles merged by unanimous consensus with many more sources than that. I recommend taking a good long read of the notability policy, because repeated bludgeoning with incorrect assertions can be considered disruptive. Instead of assuming everyone else is wrong, maybe consider you are misinterpreting the relevant policies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying other people are "wrong." There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and saying they are flat-out wrong.

"I have had articles merged by unanimous consensus with many more sources than that."

On the other hand, I've seen many AFDs where a music album or television show episode was kept based on just two reviews. It depends on what the subject is, the quality of said sources and who shows up to vote. Certain WikiProjects tends to catch the attention of more inclusionists than others.

"I recommend taking a good long read of the notability policy."

I'm well-aware of the notability guidelines and the purpose behind them, rather I just don't agree with certain assertions of it that you and certain other editors have. Also keep in mind that nowhere do that or any relevant guidelines say or suggest that listicles or any articles of the type can't be used to establish notability like you seem to suggest.

Besides, that source is more in-depth than most listicles. It's basically a review on the character. Granted, it's just one review, so it wouldn't pass SIGCOV on its own, but we have other sources discussing his cultural significance too. MoonJet (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Referenced content could easily be incorporated into List_of_Punch-Out!!_characters#Soda_Popinski. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_Punch-Out!!_characters#Soda_Popinski, mainly per nom and Czar. For an article that fails WP:GNG, I have to agree with Piotrus that it's surprisngly serious and well-written. This AfD is apparently debatable, and was put in DRV, but IMHO it's obvious that GNG is failed. Almost all of these refs are listicles or trivial mentions, though a few are more debatable, IMHO. It seems that ref 1 is an RS that is significant, IMO. But ref 2, which is just cited once, is just a general guide on alcohol in video games, so isn't significant enough. Ref 6 is also only cited once, which seems to me that it isn't significant enough; even if it is so, we have just two refs being reliable, indepedent, and significant, still very borderline. The only other plausible non-trivial ref is the one from The Escapist, which has two caveats: a) it's only situational, b) it discusses the character for less than one paragraph. A lengthy paragraph, preferably longer than 100 words (I know I cited an essay for the latter, but the former is from WP:AfC) is needed to be significant, this ref's coverage doesn't meet the mark (not all of the paragraph discusses Soda, even if so, there's only 82 words). So, with this ref being not significant and possibly unreliable, I'm unconvinced. So, there's probably just one ref counting towards GNG, at a very optimistic standard there's two, which still is borderline, so I support a merge strongly. VickKiang (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 31 August 2022 (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.