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
Pikachu. To be honest, I'm not sure if this is the best target article but it was the only one identified by participants and I'm admittedly ignorant about the Pokemon universe. LizRead!Talk!21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep no evidence of BEFORE asserted and nom admits one unquestionably usable source already in article. Odds of zero more? Pretty low. If not kept, should be merged into
Pikachu, but I'm pretty sure there's enough coverage, given its proximity/relationship to the most popular/iconic Pokemon.
Jclemens (
talk)
18:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Based on what? Do you assume every nomination that doesn't explicitly state a BEFORE search hasn't done one? Not sure there's any reason to jump to that conclusion without providing counter-evidence (sourcing) of your own first.
Sergecross73msg me19:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Of course I do. On what basis would you not? AGF expects us to presume that best practices have been followed, and if followed, documented. Do you want me to ABF and presume that a nom did a BEFORE and didn't follow best practices by posting the results? When a nominator fails to follow best practices, that itself is evidence for an outcome other than what they suggest. No editor is obligated to lift a finger to refute an assertion provided without evidence: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -
Christopher Hitchens.
Jclemens (
talk)
03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but this is wrong as a matter of both policy and logic. "no evidence of BEFORE asserted" is a statement of fact: It's simply either true or disprovable. Calling neutral statements of fact casting aspersion is itself inappropriate behavior: address my arguments, don't accuse me of misconduct absent any misconduct. On a logical front, asking one editor to prove that another editor did not do something which leaves no on-wiki evidence is impossible and absurd. Contra your You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done I did not assert that no BEFORE had been done, rather that the nom had not asserted that one had.
Sergecross73 feel free to retract and apologize for your posting, and once that's out of the way I will address your sourcing query.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but the moment you opened your comment with the word "keep", it ceased to be a "neutral" comment. Feel free to keep trying to split hairs though, this line of reasoning hasn't persuaded a single person, nor has anyone provided a valid path to meeting the GNG.
Sergecross73msg me12:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. While what's there isn't particularly strong, its sourcing isn't completely horrible. I would be unopposed to a merge if that's where the consensus leads, but I don't believe Pichu's sourcing state is so bad as to warrant a deletion.
I performed a search, though there isn't really too much beyond listicles such
asthese. While they can be used to buff the reception section a bit, there aren't too many sources beyond these that aren't already in the article.
I also found these two
booksources, though they're relatively weak. I thought I'd bring them up just in case, regardless. I may have missed things though, so if anyone finds anything else semi useful, it can be added to the article or acknowledged via comment.
Pokelego999 (
talk)
18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge Content farms make up the lion's share of coverage. The nomination contradicts itself by saying "zero SIGCOV" and then showing a piece of SIGCOV, and besides the Kotaku source mentioned above, there is also
this profile of Pichu, but I still don't believe it fulfills the depth needed for GNG.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep or Merge. The Kotaku article is good for GNG and the IGN profile article is at best partial. I feel there needs to be at least
WP:THREE reliable, independent, secondary sources for this. The rest of the article is filler that could be merged with
Pikachu.
Conyo14 (
talk)
22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge Into the related Pokemon list. While back tried to find sources with no luck of anything tangible. I thought at one point just how weak it was might've been a good angle to lean into, but it's not there. I definitely don't think Pikachu is a good merge target however.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge. In spite of the claim of editors who will go unnamed, multiple users, including the nominator, conducted
WP:BEFORE properly, and saying that it's okay to ABF because he didn't "follow the rules" is very silly. Regardless, after conducting multiple attempts to find any good sourcing, I was unable to come up with much at all. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
09:59, 23 August 2023 (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.
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
Pikachu. To be honest, I'm not sure if this is the best target article but it was the only one identified by participants and I'm admittedly ignorant about the Pokemon universe. LizRead!Talk!21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep no evidence of BEFORE asserted and nom admits one unquestionably usable source already in article. Odds of zero more? Pretty low. If not kept, should be merged into
Pikachu, but I'm pretty sure there's enough coverage, given its proximity/relationship to the most popular/iconic Pokemon.
Jclemens (
talk)
18:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Based on what? Do you assume every nomination that doesn't explicitly state a BEFORE search hasn't done one? Not sure there's any reason to jump to that conclusion without providing counter-evidence (sourcing) of your own first.
Sergecross73msg me19:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Of course I do. On what basis would you not? AGF expects us to presume that best practices have been followed, and if followed, documented. Do you want me to ABF and presume that a nom did a BEFORE and didn't follow best practices by posting the results? When a nominator fails to follow best practices, that itself is evidence for an outcome other than what they suggest. No editor is obligated to lift a finger to refute an assertion provided without evidence: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -
Christopher Hitchens.
Jclemens (
talk)
03:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but this is wrong as a matter of both policy and logic. "no evidence of BEFORE asserted" is a statement of fact: It's simply either true or disprovable. Calling neutral statements of fact casting aspersion is itself inappropriate behavior: address my arguments, don't accuse me of misconduct absent any misconduct. On a logical front, asking one editor to prove that another editor did not do something which leaves no on-wiki evidence is impossible and absurd. Contra your You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done I did not assert that no BEFORE had been done, rather that the nom had not asserted that one had.
Sergecross73 feel free to retract and apologize for your posting, and once that's out of the way I will address your sourcing query.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but the moment you opened your comment with the word "keep", it ceased to be a "neutral" comment. Feel free to keep trying to split hairs though, this line of reasoning hasn't persuaded a single person, nor has anyone provided a valid path to meeting the GNG.
Sergecross73msg me12:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. While what's there isn't particularly strong, its sourcing isn't completely horrible. I would be unopposed to a merge if that's where the consensus leads, but I don't believe Pichu's sourcing state is so bad as to warrant a deletion.
I performed a search, though there isn't really too much beyond listicles such
asthese. While they can be used to buff the reception section a bit, there aren't too many sources beyond these that aren't already in the article.
I also found these two
booksources, though they're relatively weak. I thought I'd bring them up just in case, regardless. I may have missed things though, so if anyone finds anything else semi useful, it can be added to the article or acknowledged via comment.
Pokelego999 (
talk)
18:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge Content farms make up the lion's share of coverage. The nomination contradicts itself by saying "zero SIGCOV" and then showing a piece of SIGCOV, and besides the Kotaku source mentioned above, there is also
this profile of Pichu, but I still don't believe it fulfills the depth needed for GNG.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ)
20:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep or Merge. The Kotaku article is good for GNG and the IGN profile article is at best partial. I feel there needs to be at least
WP:THREE reliable, independent, secondary sources for this. The rest of the article is filler that could be merged with
Pikachu.
Conyo14 (
talk)
22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge Into the related Pokemon list. While back tried to find sources with no luck of anything tangible. I thought at one point just how weak it was might've been a good angle to lean into, but it's not there. I definitely don't think Pikachu is a good merge target however.--
Kung Fu Man (
talk)
08:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge. In spite of the claim of editors who will go unnamed, multiple users, including the nominator, conducted
WP:BEFORE properly, and saying that it's okay to ABF because he didn't "follow the rules" is very silly. Regardless, after conducting multiple attempts to find any good sourcing, I was unable to come up with much at all. -
Cukie Gherkin (
talk)
09:59, 23 August 2023 (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.