Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pichu

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pichu[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)

Article's receotion were filled with listicles and such. Zero WP:SIGCOV. A single usable source [1] doesn't help. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 22 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. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 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]
You need to provide evidence that a BEFORE search wasn't done, not baselessly muse about it. Did you find other GNG-supporting sources or not? "Pretty sure there's enough coverage" doesn't cut it and you should know that by now. Sergecross73 msg me 11:06, 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. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 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 as these. 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 book sources, 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 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 per all. WP:BEFORE shows coverage that does not quite add up to WP:SIGCOV. But it's enough that this should be WP:PRESERVEd as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:24, 23 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]
Did I miss where the nom said somewhere a BEFORE was conducted? If so, please show me so I can apologize for my misstatement. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - sourcing is weak and the source acknowledged in the nomination, while long, isn't particularly helpful in actually writing prose for a Wikipedia article. Complaints about not doing a BEFORE search are meritless without proof. Just one many many routine WP:POKEMON. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense. The nomination advocates deletion or merger, and doesn't contain a valid keep argument, let alone advocate for that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - As per points already discussed, I believe merging with the related list would be the best option. Ekdalian (talk) 13:41, 25 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.