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 No consensus to delete. This is the wrong forum to decide between redirecting an article and keeping it separate. Flowerparty^☀ 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blastoise[edit]

Blastoise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about an arbitrary Pokémon without any significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. I've searched and there doesn't appear to be sources with critical discussion on the character. Artichoker^[talk] 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - The rest is fine, but it has hardly anything to make a critical reception section with. Referencing most of the article with a few interviews is nice, but it doesnt make it automaticly notable. --Blake (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think that the references in the article do satisfy the requirements. They just arent in the form of a separate paragraph like the other articles. --Blake (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "They just arent in the form of a separate paragraph like the other articles"? Theleftorium 16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having a whole section about the reception, like the other articles, the reception is spread out throughout the article, in a way. Zap found a book that talks all about Blastoise, what he did, how popular he is, etc and used it all over the article. I think this is a new generation of articles in the making. Not every Pokémon can have a big giant reception section like Pikachu, who is painted on a plane, and has a virus named after it. --Blake (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not really reception. His sources are mostly gameguide materials that discuss the attributes of Blastoise in an in-universe style. This is different from the critical discussion that is needed to fill up a "Reception" section. Artichoker^[talk] 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You say "the reception is spread out throughout the article", but I can't find it anywhere. Theleftorium 16:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on your definition of "reception". If it means how notable is the Pokémon, then there are plenty of things.

This tortoise-like Pokémon is well-known for being featured on the cover of one of the first Pokémon games, Pokémon Blue, as well as Pokémon Stadium......Blastoise is the final evolved form of Squirtle, one of the Pokémon players may receive at the beginning of playing Pokémon Red or Blue, and the remakes of those games......Described in Notre Dame's The Observer as "a tank of a turtle",......Blastoise also appears in Super Smash Bros and Super Smash Bros Melee as one of many Pokemon that a fighter can send out after throwing a Poke Ball......and is the main Pokémon on Green's team.

But, thats probably not what you mean. Why does a Pokémon need to be notable outside of the series? That doesnt make any sense. Satoshi Tajiri isnt notable outside of making the games. Why does he deserve a page? Alot of the manga series we have pages for arent notable outside of Pokémon. Why do they have pages? Because they are notable in the series. I think everyone is looking too deep into the rules. --Blake (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sentences you provided are not reception. Also, "notable outside the series" means that it has received critical reception from independent third-party sources. Unlike Blastoise, a quick search of Satoshi Tajiri shows that he satisfies that criterion. Artichoker^[talk] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This tortoise-like Pokémon is well-known for being featured on the cover of one of the first Pokémon games, Pokémon Blue."

"Blastoise is a well-known Pokémon because of its role in the video games, but it makes relatively few appearances in the anime."

(from below, not yet in the article)"Blastoise's role in the video games has been described as an 'impressive... tank'—compared with Wobbuffett, 'except, that it can actually defend itself'."

How are these sentences not considered critical reception? Plus, just to throw it out there, KaZaA reformed under a company called Blastoise, among others. And while i have yet to find an article connecting the two (or saying where the got the name from at all), it's not unreasonable to assume that someone out there wrote something about it, and it's as coherent a connection to our real-world as naming a leptin after pikachu. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Blake (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20) - Does not establish notability as there is not significant coverage in secondary sources. A species of Pokémon is not notable because of cursory mentions and blurbs from in-universe guides. As with any other article (on Pokémon or any topic), this article can be changed from a redirect if secondary sources arise that show this particular Pokémon has had impact in the real world. —Ost (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - A discussion about this article is also taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Blastoise. Theleftorium 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - I thought WP had already decided this.. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Essays are not binding contracts of community consensus. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this article makes critical claims about the Pokemon's popularity, why it's well-known, and analyzes the character's role in the game (akin to Mario#Abilities or the plethora of articles on Chess openings), this is all referenced to a third-party publication about Pokemon as a whole that devoted three pages to Blastoise which meets WP:N's definition of significant coverage, "more than trivial, but less than exclusive", and supported with details from third-party guides (now). Additionally, throwing the phrase "in-universe" in front of guide does not somehow make it less reliable according to WP:RS, since these guides are not describing the games as if the pokemon world is a real place that claim is just patently false. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • as an aside, just to remind you guys at the wikiProject, this is not a vote, it's a place for discussing the merits of the article, so merely piling on and saying "Keep/Delete/Redirect/Merge as per So-and-So" is unconstructive. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this is a vote. What you are talking about would be a Peer Review. --Blake (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, no... see WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD, the second list. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I get what you are saying now. I agree with you there. Just saying "I agree", "Redirect per above", etc. is sort of cheap and doesnt contribute much to the conversation. Either come up with your own words or dont say anything. --Blake (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying in-universe may not automatically exclude a source from WP:RS, but you can't deny that they're first party sources when the guides are created by Game Freak (as most of the article's guide sources are). You need more sources with real world impact and currently there do not seem to be sources that do this. —Ost (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The game freak sources are primary sources (used for description), and not the ones i'm talking about. Ref #2 (Cooper) is the one on which most of the article is drawn. Ref #4 and Ref #8 (MacDonald and Shlesinger, respectively) are third party authors who felt that the individual pokemon were noteworthy enough to give detailed information on each of them, these sources are given proper weight within the article. I am supporting the article on these three sources alone, the others are there merely for description, as fully allowed by standard guidelines. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to List of Pokémon (1–20). I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the rest. I'm not seeing anything any significant coverage of the Pokemon that is separate from the rest of them (unlike Pikachu, Bulbasaur, or recently-promoted GA MissingNo.) and also from secondary sources. I have also tried to search and came up empty. MuZemike 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • um... did you notice the second ref (Cooper)? and looking at the refs for those other pokemon articles (excpt pikachu), their refs to "Critical reception" are mostly passing mentions. Here I'm using an entire article all about Blastoise, and it's ridiculous that I have to be defending it. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you understand, Zapper. The Cooper ref is nothing but a gameguide reference that fails to present any critical discussion on Blastoise. It pretty much just lists its in-universe attributes. Passing mentions are actually fine, as long as they provide critical coverage and they are many of those such reliable and independent sources. This allows an writer to compose a lengthy and comprehensive "reception" section. As a result of many editors' searches, not much information appears for Blastoise. Artichoker^[talk] 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Cooper ref is not a ref to a gameguide (which technically doesn't matter). It's a ref to a magazine about pokemon. Like i stated above, this ref supports two key components to establishing it's notability:

1. It makes an evaluative claim on whether or not it is well-known (Is Blastoise obscure, somewhat well-known, one of the best known?).

2. It gives the reason (Because it's on the cover of one of the first games, and evolves from a starter).

--ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • (ec)One article in a publication is hardly significant coverage, but it does help the text if the article is kept. Maybe a better question is if Beckett's is a WP:RS that has been discussed by WP:VG/S. —Ost (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • actually, Beckett would fall outside of the scope of the Video Game wikiProject as by default the publisher usually works with trading card games. The info they provide relating to the video games is solely related to Blastoise. being familiar with the topic myself, i found it generally accurate, making fewer technical errors than most mainstream outlets when discussing pokemon. If you'd like, you can pick one up at Wal-Mart right now and have a look-see. Your assertion that an article within a publication does not constitue significant coverage runs counterintuitive to the notion of coverage that is "more than trivial" which is usually meant to include passing mentions - not full articles. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - would it help if i added the author's opinions on Blastoise? I personally don't feel most author's reviews are accurate descriptions of how the general population would describe a given subject (and one always has to take those things with a grain of salt), but if editors here feel that putting something like this would improve the article, I would go ahead:
  • Blastoise's role in the video games has been described as an "impressive... tank", and compared with Wobbuffett except, "that it can actually defend itself".

--ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article is reliable and provides said significant independent coverage (it's print so I cannot readily access it right now), but are there other sources out there that can provide similar or more (critical real world) coverage of Blastoise? MuZemike 01:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that that is a good reference, but there needs to be more? --Blake (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps, but as i will readily admit, there is likely nothing online that someone can do with a google search (or this would have been settled long ago). Finding more sources would require real-outside-work and i think i personally did enough in finding these two (the MacDonald one was from the old version) that i shouldn't have to be fighting it in an AFD. Presuming I'm not pulling these sources out of my ass (and i have a spotless editing record here), the existence of these sources satisfy WP:N and it's an open and shut case. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20) - Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources needed to establish notability. Edison (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed redirection makes no sense because Pokemon 1-20 have no notability as a group, being an arbitrary selection, contrary to WP:SYN. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly a notable character in this multi-billion dollar series. Enough valid information to fill an article, so no reason to erase 90% or more of that and shove what is left into another article. Keep, not merge or redirect, which are the same as delete in most cases. Dream Focus 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of material and references for an article about this important character in an important series. — brighterorange (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. The sources usable for GNG provide excellent references for Pokemon (as creatures) on the whole. If there are several independent real-world-focus articles such as The Observer one, with Blastoise as their primary subject, then I'll be convinced that an individual article is required. Marasmusine (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article does not have to meet your own personal requirements in addition to WP:V and (to a lesser extent) WP:N. articles about dogs are focused on animals, articles about apples are focused on food, articles about Blastoise can be focused on Pokemon. The video games, anime, etc. exist within our real world (they were created by a real person, i can buy them) just as much as animals and food. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • and doesn't the Cooper one satisfy your requirement? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "articles about dogs are focused on animals, articles about apples are focused on food, articles about Blastoise can be focused on Pokemon." is a somewhat egregious analogy (akin to one made by creationists). Articles about dogs are not focused on animals, they are focused on dogs and are always talked about in an real life, out-of-universe style with plenty of 3rd party (there really aren't any 1st party ones) sources to establish notability. Pokémon is completely different, as it is a fictional topic, and thus must abide by WP:IN-U. The Blastoise article just doesn't have the critical, real-world discussion required for an adequate article. Artichoker^[talk] 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case it wasn't clear, my opinion was based on the WP:GNG. Marasmusine (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artichoker, before reiterating the same opinion over and over, it would be helpful if you instead addressed my above question as to how the provided sentences do not satisfy the requirements for real-world reception, here's the diff in case you just missed it. Additionally, WP:IN-U is about talking about fictional subjects as if they really existed, not appropriateness of topics or requirements for inclusion.
  • Marasumine, from WP:GNG:"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Where are the words real-world-focus articles that you say your opinion is based on? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is clearly notable as demonstrated by the numerous sources which reference it. Criticism is not required in an article and so the nominator's premise is false. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criticism"? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. I did say that the article needs critical discussion, which is absolute true, because without it there exists no grounds for notability. In other words, unless an article has coverage from reliable, third-party sources, it is not notable. Artichoker^[talk] 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your nomination demands "'critical discussion'". Sorry, but that is just your idiosyncratic view as topics are not required to present opinions, just facts. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fictional topics pretty much have to present opinions as that is how notability is established: the article receives critical coverage from independent sources. And a "Reception" section presents how the character was received (i.e. an opinion.) Artichoker^[talk] 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, opinions are not required. This creature appears in sundry formats - TV, movie, book, game, TCG, etc. The facts of these presentations are quite ample for our purposes and we don't need opinions on whether it is cute, silly or whatever. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because then it's just a bunch of primary sources, which cannot establish notability. Artichoker^[talk] 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there's no connection between the degree of distance of the source and the way that it approaches the topic. Third-party source can and do approach the topic in a matter-of-fact way. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• i find it odd that artichoker is somehow trying to claim the article is then "just a bunch of primary sources" despite the fact that there are three third-party sources in the ref section. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I want to mention that if the article does indeed stay an article, I will be moving some things back over from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Blastoise. I saved the content before Zap started removing half of it. I think for some reason he thought that the article was being deleted because there was too much in-universe information. Which is silly, because as long as articles have the proper notability, they could be a big giant mess and could still be an article.--Blake (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually, that was normal cleanup i would have done anyways, i had mentioned on the project page i would be continuing to work on the article, and i did - plus sometimes it helps in afd discussions if people can see that there are ongoing efforts to improve the article in question, but we can discuss specific content changes on the article's talk page when the smoke settles here. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I added the 2nd lead pharagraph back because that is what every Pokemon species should have. The lead first describes what the subject is in the first pharagraph, and a summary of the article in following pharagraphs. I also added the mention of the two Gym leaders in the anime, and will add to the Manga section once I get to referencing the bit I want to add. --Blake (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (extra rambling by zappernapper, feel free to ignore) the discussion here actually represents quite well the current state of wikipedia in regards to fiction. the discussion has polarized into two factions that cannot compromise, and compromise is the essence of consensus (if you'd like a good book, go through the archives of WT:FICT). blake, you have actually represented consensus very well because despite the fact that you'd like to see each pokemon have it's own article again (which i can empathize with), you can accept that there is a significant group of editors who view that to be detrimental to the encyclopedia, so you compromise. problems arise when editors cannot accept any compromise, taking a firm position, and refusing to believe even a modest concession could be beneficial. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, thanks? --Blake (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh yes. When our group of active editors is composed entirely out of varyingly pedantic, obsessive idealists, the use of common sense is commendable. --Kizor 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination Improperly nominated. There are many reasons to keep and delete, but the one that trumps them all is that the nominator has quite clearly used this AfD as part of an edit war. "18:42, 7 July 2009 Artichoker (talk | contribs) (66 bytes) (going ahead and boldly making this a redirect. no notability, goes against consensus etc. A further revert will result in this article being taken to AfD.) (undo) " Discussion before, during, and after. If there are active editors with opposing views on the article, and if consensus cannot be reached, RfC. Definitely RfC before AfD. AfDs in the middle of, with the nominator a participant in, an edit war, and NO...DISCUSSION...AT...ALL? Incomprehensible. Withdraw the nomination, and ANI may look more kindly upon you. You have 18 hours. Use them wisely. Anarchangel (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I don't believe you know what you are talking about. This AfD was not part of an edit war, it was created to garner a consensus within the community. The result of the AfD should eliminate the content dispute we were involved in. RfC is an unnecessary step when dealing with the notability of an article, as it can simply be taken to AfD: that's what the process is for'. And I'm sorry, but this statement "NO...DISCUSSION...AT...ALL? Incomprehensible." is just plain offensive. It is obvious you have not done enough research before making your bold (and completely fallacious) claims. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Blastoise for the extensive dicussion that took place prior to and during this AfD. And of course you end your comment with the portent of ANI; unnecessary, threatening, escalating. If you still believe the report is justified, go ahead. Artichoker^[talk] 16:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd just like to point out that discussions about these species articles have taken place at the project's talk page for months now. Theleftorium 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but a new discussion has to happen each time new information is found for each Pokémon. You cant just say no Pokemon are notable except the ones we have articles for now. We havent searched for sources for hours on every single Pokemon. Only a select few, and even then, new information pops up everyday. --Blake (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (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.