Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorua and Zoroark

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 redirect. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zorua and Zoroark[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)

What makes those Pokemon notable? Even the article's lead states that "The reception for the two Pokémon are relatively mild, with generally favorable fan and critic comments, although the two consistently placed somewhat low in popularity polls." and the tiny reception concurs - they are listed in high double digits or even triple in lists of Pokemon popularity, and have zero recognition outside Pokemon fandom. BEFORE doesn't show anything reliable that's not a mention in passing, no WP:SIGCOV outside game guides 'how to get them/how to play with them'. The best solution with WP:PRESERVE in mind would be to redirect this to List of generation V Pokémon. Hmmm, this also makes me wonder if we need to give the surviving Pokemon articles another pass? It has been a while since the Great Old Pokemon debate (or should it be Great Old Pokemon Purge...? :>). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 3 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} 04:50, 3 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} 04:50, 3 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} 04:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of generation V Pokémon. I recommend doing another pass on those other Pokemon articles. AdoTang (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I looked through the sources in Reception, and they are all just lists. Definitely not the coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NFICTION. Link20XX (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect their individual names, delete the combined name article. The reception relies almost entirely on listicles and does not pass WP:SIGCOV. It was clearly created as an end run around the Pokemon test. Oh, and Game Informer? Zorua is not in fact better, what exactly are you smoking._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Pokémon test was an incredibly biased destruction of information and has lead to unreasonable scrutiny for all Pokémon related articles. I do not have a strong opinion on this particular article, I am tempted to allow Zoroark his own article due to [1] and [2], but that first source is weak; but we do not need another Poképurge. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. However, the lack of an individual character's popularity does not necessarily equate to lack of notability and so is the inverse, per WP:POPULARITY. Sometimes their lack of popularity is precisely why independent and reliable secondary sources have covered that aspect, and that is what we are supposed to be looking for per WP:GNG. Anyway, "the Pokemon Test" is a mere essay and not at all useful for discussions about the notability of fictional topics since WP:GNG is the only relevant guideline. The contents of the essay itself acknowledged that the criteria it proposes have long since fallen out of use, if it was ever accepted as a form of consensus. Haleth (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. I don't see anything wrong with it. —ÐW^(T·C) 15:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you should read up on our policies such as Wikipedia:Notability. Also, WP:ILIKEIT _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the long-standing WP:POKEMON consensus. I'll also note that the prose is pretty bloated and overly wordy to try to overcompensate. I mean half of the "design" section is just someone describing an image of the Pokémon. The appearance section is a bunch of redundant and tangent filled sentences. The reception is merely a collection listicles and passing mentions of every time someone called it "good" or "cute". It's devoid of any real substance. Or could probably distilled into a concise paragraph at best. Not a stand alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 10 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.