Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidoof

Bidoof

[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)

Non-notable Pokemon that fails WP:GNG, all sources are trivial mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV, and pulled from articles not actually about Bidoof itself. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then restore the redirect and salt. Non-notable, doesn't pass WP:GNG. This article was merged in 2014, and stayed that way until Sept 2021. The IP who recreated the article is almost certainly an LTA/sock. It was quickly redirected again, then restored without a valid reason. There was then a consensus to redirect at WT:VG, followed by a talk page notification, a week wait, and a redirect. Then it was restored again, with a faulty argument that a talk page discussion isn't valid for redirecting. -- ferret (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect, and salt - We had an extensive Wikiproject level discussion in which there was a consensus that it wasn't currently independently notable, and an unopposed discussion on the talk page about redirecting it. It's a very clear cut case of WP:POKEMON. Nothing but trivial passing mentions and inconsequential blurbs and memes from the fandom. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon. It may not be notable on its own, but this is definitely a searched name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Adding a link to the discussion that happened on VGWP:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 159#A Pokemon debate or something idk I'm not paying attention Jumpytoo Talk 20:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof as an alternative to deletion. Haleth (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking through the references in the article I find this. [1] Significant coverage in a reliable source. They talk about a music video someone made about the character as well. [2] A different reliable source also gives them significant coverage [3]. Dream Focus 12:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This was exactly the sort of inconsequential coverage I was referring to above. And it's the same coverage that was presented in the Wikiproject discussion already. Those sources are all fluff, not something you can write an entire article around. We already have a place to list off Pokémon where there's little if importance to say. It's redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - An entire article has been written though. Look at the Reception section! Anyway, significant coverage in a reliable source can not be dismissed because you consider it "fluff". The general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 13:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you read the article? It's current status includes two massive paragraphs name dropping every single game he's ever appeared or cameo'd in. And another paragraph is just someone's writing out a basic description of him. It's all wikia junk - pure fan obsession stuff - not encyclopedic in the least. And don't get me started on that "reception" section listing off every time a journalist made a passing mention of him being "good/bad/cute" with no further elaboration. It's easy to say "read the article" but as soon as someone actually does, they see there's nothing of substance or significance on it. Just bloat to create the illusion of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 14:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reception is sufficient to make it notable or else we need a notability guidelines for Pokemon species and characters. If no such policy exists, this article and its efforts should not suffer. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]