Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidoof (2nd nomination)

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 redirect‎ to List of generation IV Pokémon#Bidoof. RL0919 (talk) 11:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bidoof

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

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

Sigh Here we go again... Bidoof continues to fail WP:GNG as a non-notable Pokemon, even after the article resurrection. Why? Notability is not inherited. Most of the reception is talking about Bidoof Day - a separate topic - or the Bidoof's Big Stand animated short, also a separate topic. It's the equivalent of citing quotations from game reviews to justify the notability of a character within the game. While the Vice article has a solid amount of discussion about the Pokemon itself, that's only one source, and the other "major" one is a heavily meme-y Kotaku article, of the sort editors are advised to avoid at all costs. Many other sources are rather trivial.

I think Big Stand is arguably more notable than the Pokemon itself with a couple major reviews [1] [2] - though still not quite notable enough for an article from what I've found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As is demonstrated in WP:GNG, a citation does not need to be talking about the subject primarily in order for it to be usable as a show of notability for the subject. Multiple citations used in the article state that Bidoof's popularity among the fanbase is responsible for why things like Bidoof's Big Stand and Bidoof Day exist in the first place, so to argue that their notability is not related to Bidoof itself is not a well-founded argument to make. This article provides sigcov on Bidoof as a meme, and this source, despite being a "listicle," provides adequate coverage and discussion of Bidoof to constitute sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, as a gentle reminder, be sure to notify all relevant editors of the deletion of the article, not just the person who made the first edit. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Elected to change to Redirect after discussing the topic with another editor. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect No consensus to override the last AFD and this continues to fail WP:GNG. Jontesta (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with Zx here. I've gone through the articles sources, and besides the Vice article, I'm not particularly convinced. The Polygon and Kotaku sources are pretty meme-y and are mostly just quoting Twitter posts, and I can't say they give much weight. I also don't know if I can count a ranking of all 150 original Pokemon as "significant coverage" when it's just a small paragraph in a sea of 149 other paragraphs. I don't think there's significant critical commentary here. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't think this meets the mark... λ NegativeMP1 17:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect while I am a massive fan of this series and would love for a separate Bidoof article, I feel the current article is just not really cutting it. I have no oppositions to reviving this should more Bidoof content occur in the future, but right now, it feels like it's taking a lot of notability from Bidoof's Big Stand and Bidoof Day, which aren't really talking about Bidoof the species, and that it's better off probably waiting in the oven a bit longer.
As an aside, I feel Bidoof's Big Stand has potential as an article given the coverage for the episode, but I'd have to double check the strength of the refs on that one. Either way, I'd suggest redirecting Bidoof for the time being. No opposition to recreation if more coverage like the Vice source presents itself in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I do concur a lot of the notability is in regards to the short specifically, and while it's a known Pokemon, it doesn't feel notable on its own merits after a BEFORE and examining the sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2024 (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/Bidoof_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1248049714"