Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterfree

Butterfree

[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)

As a fan of the original 151 Pokemon and someone who enjoyed Bye Bye, Butterfree myself, I went over the sources carefully as I really want this to be notable. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem that way at all and it doesn't feel like the article's recreation was justified. Arguably its best source is from CBR, which is considered "unreliable" post 2016. Everything else is pretty trivial, about the episode rather than the Pokemon itself, or from large general lists of Pokemon which don't indicate that particular one is uniquely notable. Even with the paper comparing bug Pokemon to real-world insects, I am not convinced GNG is passed here. I realize I may get hit with the "you nominated it the day it was recreated" argument, but the article did not have an "under construction" banner so I must assume that the creator believes it is in a finished state. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being about the episode does not mean that notability cannot be gleaned for Butterfree from the discussion of the episode and commentary on Butterfree's role in it. The Gamer discusses Ash's relationship with Butterfree and what its return could symbolize, and simply being a part of a greater article does not mean that the discussion of the urban legend surrounding it and Venonat is not a demonstration of notability (per WP:GNG). The fact that the episode is a large part of why people talk about Butterfree so much is immaterial to the fact that they do. There is also commentary on Butterfree's role in the game as an early evolver, as was it the subject of commentary as being Ash's first Pokémon caught. I also added this article, which discusses extensively Butterfree's relationship with Ash in the anime. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon#Butterfree per nom - Most of the sources are game guides, extremely trivial mentions, and content-farm style "Top Ten" lists. The few that look half-way decent are just reviews/summaries of a handful of specific episodes of the anime that featured Ash's Butterfree, with no real discussion about the actual fictional species, and even those are not from the most reliable of sources. I also have to mention that there looks to be quite a bit of WP:REFBOMBing going on here. I already mentioned the trivial nature of the coverage of Butterfree in a lot of the included references, but some of these are literally one sentence mentions of that Pokemon and some, such as the first and fourth ones currently listed, don't mention Butterfree at all. Overall, I am not seeing anything to justify this specific Pokemon being split out into an independent article, and should be Redirected to its section at the Gen I Pokemon list. Rorshacma (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to make the point that the sources you're referring to as not mentioning Butterfree are only used to verify basic information about what a Pokémon is, how they work, and how the games work. Not mentioning Butterfree does not make them not useful for this article, and the same citations are used on Raichu, a featured article. As far as top 10 lists go, there is nothing to suggest that merely being in a top 10 list makes coverage less significant. The Gamer, Crunchyroll, and the entomologist all provide significant coverage on the subject, even if Butterfree is not the main subject of their respective works. In the latter's case, they may be analyzing the Bug type as a whole, but they do not give each Pokémon equal weight. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sources not mentioning the subject can be useful for an article, but they also do nothing to help establish any notability for the subject, which is the issue at stake here. Its the sheer number of references being used here that either don't mention Buterfree or have a one-sentence namedrop that gives the impression of a WP:REFBOMB. As far as "Top Ten" style lists go, putting aside the fact that these are often from content farms that are generally not considered reliable sources, they also generally do not actually contain significant coverage. Take the IGN list included here, for example - its three sentences long, and its "coverage" of Butterfree is simply "Bye Bye Butterfree was sad", which is not significant coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? No one claimed those sources showed notability, they're there to verify facts, how is this refbombing in any capacity? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is the first two points of the WP:REFBOMB essay - an overkill of citations that briefly namecheck the subject without actually being about the subject, and citations that don't mention the subject and are presented to verify a fact that is not related to the subject's notability. Keep in mind that WP:REFBOMB is just an essay, not a policy - I am simply using it to demonstrate the larger issue - the fact that so many trivial citations are needed to be used to try to provide references for the article shows the lack of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources that would allow Buttefree to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Something I feel needs clarification, by the "first and fourth one", are you talking about the references in the article itself or the reception section? Because references 1 and 4 are part of the "copypasta" used in these articles to establish terminology and context to the reader.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man:Yeah, I'm talking about the "copypasta" part that just has the general overview of what a Pokémon is. Which, yeah, I understand is needed for context, but still means about 7 of the citations in this article are not about the subject of the article, which combined with the fact that another 8 are of the "single word mentions" variety means that the article has a lot of citations - but more than half are not actually on the subject of the article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: That doesn't constitute a refbomb in this case though, that's a section agreed upon after multiple discussions at WT:VGCHAR to help readers understand these articles, and survived the FAC process just fine. Holding them against an article like this is realistically pretty unfair, as refbombing revolves around unnecessary sources in an article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I apologize, as I did not mean it to be a slight against the editors of the article or to imply any intentional wrongdoing on their part. It was mainly just to preempt the argument I occasionally see pop up in AFDs where someone will cite the number of references in an article as evidence of notability, without examining the amount of coverage of the topic in those references. It was basically just me saying "despite the number of sources present, the coverage of the subject within a lot of them is not significant". I'll try to use better wording in the future. Rorshacma (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As an aside, is there any reason why CBR is unreliable in a way that other Valnet sources are not? I believe that general consensus is that being owned by Valnet is not disqualifying, and the article used here was published prior to CBR's layoffs and use of AI. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 30#Comic Book Resources, it seems to be due to a significant degradation of content compared to their old self, and the fact they didn't cover video game subjects until after Valnet bought them, which, additionally, was when their old staff practically all left the moment Valnet bought them. Admittedly I do feel I disagree in its complete unreliability, since it's about equal in terms of quality to the usual Game Rant/Screen Rant, but that was the rationale provided during its initial discussion. I feel if its status should be debated, another discussion at the Sources page would be warranted, but that is likely outside the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a key thing being missed here is the wording "generally" vs strictly unreliable. We've had discussions regarding Valnet afterward that are visible in the archives on the subject of editorial pieces, where the concerns with CBR were strictly about churnalism and AI usage accusations (the latter of which Valnet confirmed they have no plans to use). The article cited here however is an editorial opinion piece, and should be fine for usage.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While I would appreciate stronger sourcing, I feel what's here shows some potential avenues of discussion that help illustrate the character's notability. In the anime's regard, its character arc and the impact it had on viewers is definitely commented on frequently even years after its exit from the show. There's a dissertation here, which while brief actually covers how reactions to the anime helped affect the games itself later on. There's also discussion here on how Butterfree leaving continues a theme of loss and acceptance for children to understand. Additionally there is some design commentary, and while I'd like that to be stronger (then again, let's be real it's a butterfly), the avenue of its evolution being inconsistent and how fans have attempted to rationalize such and the importance of such rationalization is talked about in a published paper here. Now this is just from a cursory glance online thus far, but with how quickly I found these in scholarly works I feel there's enough to this subject to warrant it as a stand alone, it's just a bit in the rough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't access one of them, the others you posted are only 1-2 sentences long when talking about Butterfree, so it kinda backs up the extremely trivial mention/REFBOMB idea here. This feels like it's going into a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument unless you can outright demonstrate several reliable, significant sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More I'm suggesting one could build a "death by 1000 cuts" approach of using the smaller sources providing unique thoughts on a matter observations to support bigger sources in the article, which we've seen in the past can work. It's a weaker argument I'll admit, but it's why I prefaced this with a weak keep.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added this source to the reception (and used it to reduce the number of citations by replacing a source for this in the Appearances section). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst I wish there was more here on the species, I think the article does enough to help the subject pass GNG with the mentions of the anime. From the way I read it and see the sources in the reception, I believe the mentions of Bye Bye Butterfree justifies the importance of the Butterfree character in the anime, as well as states why the species is popular in the first place, not strictly about the episode itself. Captain Galaxy 10:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]