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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby (Paper Mario)[edit]

Bobby (Paper Mario) (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)

Far more notable characters within the Mario universe have had their pages deleted or merged into related lists than a side character from a spin-off title. The claim that he is "identified as both one of the best Nintendo characters of all time" also seems rather subjective? Definitely does not meet WP:GNG. TechnicalNewt (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not making a vote in this discussion right now, and don't know if I ever will. But for an article like this that has proper sourcing and isn't a blatant clusterfuck with several tagged issues, there should be some sort of source analysis as to demonstrate how the subject isn't notable. I can agree with you on "identified as both one of the best Nintendo characters of all time" being subjective, as it seems to be only verified by Game Rant (a claim like this is fine for the lead, though it would definitely need more than one source backing it up), but you should provide more in-depth explanation as to how the subject is not notable. λ NegativeMP1 17:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a correction, the claim is cited to GameSpot and Destructoid, not Game Rant. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've removed the mention of "greatest Nintendo characters" from the WP:LEAD, which I agree, is a bit too strong of a claim to make with the reception sections' current status. But that aside, that's simply a "clean up issue", and AFD is not clean up". And other Mario characters having or not having an article isn't relevant to the discussion. The main things to determine are if it meets the WP:GNG, and if there's any valid merge reasons. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several articles in reliable sources about this specific character, so GNG is met. Your subjective opinion about the character's importance compared to other Nintendo characters is not relevant. Also, it is considered polite to notify the creator of the article, so I went ahead and did that. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. AfD rationale appears to not extend beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. Certainly not the strongest article, but the nominator's rationale is invalid and the Reception itself has enough sources to stand on its feet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Just because he a spin off character from the Mario franchise and far more notable characters in the series have their articles terminated or merged does not means the article also need to be deleted or merged and the article also have two or three sources mainly discuss about him so WP:NVGC. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This is obvious, in my view. There is significant coverage, and it is part of a very, very important game/character franchise. Anwegmann (talk) 02:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I feel as others have stated this is a case of "I don't like it", and sour grapes over other articles the nominator likes that have been merged instead. That said Bobby I feel stands just enough on its own and has enough significant coverage spread over enough of a period of time to illustrate the character's weight. Disclosure, I became aware of this AfD due to a brief discussion mentioning it in the wikipedia discord by Panini who was asking another user for thoughts regarding a source cited here, and that did not affect my vote.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I do agree with the people above that the article sufficiently surpasses WP:GNG, specifically I would like to note that the Kotaku, CBR and GameStop articles more than meets the requirements. Comment: I will ask the question, does this article meet a B Class status? I personally see it fulfilling the C Class status but hey I am no expert on the class qualification so I'd rather have someone who is more familiar with it to judge that. CaptainGalaxy 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not opposed to lowering it, but can you elaborate concerns? The plot summary is uncited, but the article is generally complete and, at least, competently written (not trying to gussy myself up). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you have done quite well with the article, so I don't think you are gushing it up at all. But in my opinion, I feel that the lead is too short and doesn't cover much in terms of the reception. There is also "citation needed" prompt in the appearances section. Adding on I feel that the concept section could be expanded upon but I can imagine that being a lack of sourcing issue which if that's the case doesn't need addressing as I haven't looked into Bobby sources myself. Like I said, I am no expert of the class rating system so if my objections are invalid feel free to ignore my comments. Hope you have a good day! CaptainGalaxy 16:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article would not meet a B class status to me, personally. I'm not sure how useful it is to discuss at length in the deletion discussion but happy to talk elsewhere, such as on the talk page to identify what aspects could be improved. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/keep I recommend renaming this to Bob-omb, since both names appear in the coverage, and it would lead to natural disambiguation. But that doesn't need to be done in this AFD, and I am convinced that WP:SIGCOV is met. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shooterwalker: Bob-omb is the species name, which appears in a variety of games and would arguably be the primary topic despite being a redirect. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I contest a rename, since Bob-omb is the species name, not the name of the character. Even if Bob-omb is assumed to be the proper name, Bobby is the more frequently used one, and per WP:COMMONNAME, it works far better. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I brought it up because Bob-omb is also earning coverage alongside Bobby, and WP:NATDIS is sometimes more important than WP:COMMONNAME. But I support the keep either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue this is more related to Bobby than the Bob-omb species as a whole. Bob-omb would just cause an unnecessary disambiguation issue due to the species in question being already covered at the Mario character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm abstaining from the vote due to my unfamiliarity with how this process works, but I am extremely puzzled as to why the votes on this page are leaning towards keep, and yet Diddy Kong's article was recently removed. Could someone explain to me what makes Bobby notable enough for a Wikipedia page but not Diddy Kong? Thank you.

Jcharlesk (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am also confused about the consensus here given that recently many far more well-sourced articles for characters have been subject to lengthy deletion discussions, did not have such a consensus, and ended in a deletion. Not questioning the wisdom of users here, but what changed? This isn't in support of one side or another so is not a WP:WHATABOUT argument. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's probably that Bobby have at least few discussion I think? unlike other popular characters like Diddy Kong. Also, listicles doesn't contribute WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But almost all of the references used in this article are listicles. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Almost all"? Can you elaborate which sources are listicles? By my estimation, there are four "listicles" out of the nine sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are four; I was exaggerating. But I would also say that the first source also isn't specifically about Bobby, meaning that only 4/9 of the articles used are specifically about him. Four articles that talk about a specific moment/character in a game is very few, so there's little reason not to just make this whole article a segment in the Paper Mario: The Origami King article. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's actually more than enough to write a character article if possible, and more than Diddy ever saw. The key thing is that there's tangible discussion that can be taken from these to illustrate why the character was important outside of its parent work, in this case as a fictional character and in some of these in the wider context of Nintendo games. "Listicles" is often a misunderstood term, as just because something is a list doesn't mean it shouldn't be used: the key is finding a list entry that discusses something in detail, or helps support another argument enough that you can work with it. Now to go further with your point above, the problem for many with Diddy and similar Smash Bros. characters was the reception discussed them solely as a video game character in that series, and they weren't discussed in importance outside of it. Trust me when I say even stuff like DeDeDe we actively tried to find sources discussing him as a fictional character, but it wasn't there in sources we can cite per wikipedia's standards. Now they may manifest later on of course, but for now...it's just not there for them, but it is for Bobby.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that actually reveals a bit of a problem with the way Wikipedia determines subject notability. The fact that a supporting character from a single relatively niche game in a much larger franchise can earn a Wikipedia article but fan favourite main characters in the same franchise don't just doesn't make sense. The former character is worth documenting in history, but not the latter? In my opinion this is the problem with taking written rules too literally and following them too closely. Notability should also be determined by overall popularity and public knowledge, and not just by whether or not some select sources talked about that subject. It's impossible to scientifically measure something like that, but some subjectivity may be necessary in certain circumstances.

  It's easy to ignore all of what I just said and just continue going by the book, but just think about it for a second: With the way the rules are currently written out, Bobby from Paper Mario: The Origami King and Rabbid Peach from Mario + Rabbids are deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article, while Diddy Kong and King Dedede are not. Does that not expose a problem? Jcharlesk (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is this: how do you determine popularity? It's impossible to do so without it being subjective. Some may find Diddy popular while others may not. It's physically impossible to gauge without sourcing from outside sources, and those sources don't really exist outside of acknowledgement of existence. (Which practically everyone has) That's why we have the system we do. It's flawed in places, unfortunately, but it works out in most cases. Nearly every iconic character from Mario has an article, (Mario, Luigi, Bowser, Peach, etc) and it's really only a few exceptions who don't. If this was commonplace, it'd be more concerning, but characters like Diddy and Dedede are exceptions, not the norm. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Whilst I had to spoil myself on the game to check the sources (though I didn't really plan to play it in the near future), I was just so curious to see what made him notable. However, now I can see there's just enough to get the character past GNG for good reason. Ultimately it's not about the character's popularity but their critical discussion and he got a decent amount of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:SNOW. I don't have much else to add to what everyone else has said. But I do want to ask, what Mario characters without articles do you find "far more notable" than Bobby? Also, keep in mind just because certain characters have been redirected, doesn't mean they can't be brought back later on, should more significant coverage be found. MoonJet (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not the initiator but I'd say at the very least Bowser Jr., Diddy Kong, and Boo. Jcharlesk (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nah, Diddy Kong and Boo are not. Bowser Jr. has a potential thou. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Diddy Kong: Main character in Donkey Kong franchise, recurring character in Mario franchise, two games named after him, playable in Smash Bros.

  Boo: Recurring and iconic species that appears in almost every game in Mario franchise

  Bobby: Supporting character in a single spin-off game in Mario franchise

  You really think Bobby is the most notable of these three? And Bowser Jr., the secondary antagonist of the franchise, only has 'potential' to be more notable? I'm sorry, this is getting ridiculous. Jcharlesk (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games if you still don't understand about notability or WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand it, I just think it has inherent flaws. As I said earlier, I think this shows the pitfalls with following written rules too closely. One thing may follow the rules while another thing does not, but that should not be the be all end all. There's more to notability than the strict guidelines that are laid out. Jcharlesk (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not just taking something open to interpretation here, there's literally nothing in reliable sources about the Boo species that's significant coverage. The Boo (character) article was solely minor mentions in listicles. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to say something is "obviously popular" when coverage is not there. If it was popular, people would have written more about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exactly what I'm referring to when talking about the pitfalls of following written rules too closely. Like I said, there's way more to notability than whether a certain number of designated sources wrote about a subject or not. Just read my message above where I compare Bobby's role with that of several characters who don't have articles, and I think that puts things into perspective. But Diddy Kong and Bowser Jr's importance apparently doesn't exist simply because you all are following these (ultimately arbitrary) rules too closely and by the book. Some subjectivity is needed for this sort of thing. Notability is not a science. Jcharlesk (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do keep in mind, these characters have lengthy sections on their series' respective character list article, which not many other characters can say (Bowser Jr may not fit this example but perhaps it could be worked on). I don't even think it's in the sense that these characters aren't notable otherwise they wouldn't even have entries in character lists or even in game articles, it's more the fact that when it comes to the reception, which are the beating heart of a dedicated character article, they aren't many documented mentions about the impact these characters have on the people who play their game. Of course, there going to be plenty of sources that mention these characters and their appearances and creation, but they need that reception, which unfortunately characters such as Bowser Jr or Diddy Kong don't have much to show (at least not right now, perhaps in the future). Hope this helps; CaptainGalaxy 13:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But that's the thing. Why does all of that have to be the beating heart of a dedicated character article? Why do they need that reception? Those rules are ultimately completely arbitrary, so why should that be the be all end all? There should be a wider variety of criteria. Jcharlesk (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A reception section outlines why a character is notable outside of the games the character is involved with, as well as what impact said character has had within gaming communities. We need these rules because otherwise we'd have a worse version of what you were initially debating on, character articles for obscure characters but unlike Bobby or Rabbid Peach, don't even have the sources that indicate impact and notability to back the character up. What you're asking for would not only not be worth it in the long run for both time and effort, but also would also likely do more harm than good. These rules are put in place for a reason. CaptainGalaxy 21:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  See, here's the thing - I'd argue that all Pokemon are notable, but they are not independently notable of the series. Bowser Jr., Diddy Kong, K. Rool, King Dedede, Meta Knight, Boo, these are all notable characters - enough to be mentioned in their respective lists, but not enough to get individual articles. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Like I've already said, the requirement that individual articles must be written about a subject for it to get an article is a completely arbitrary rule; there should be a wider variety of criteria for a subject to be deemed notable enough for its own article. There is so much more to notability than just "how many articles from our designated sources have talked about this?" Jcharlesk (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What you don't seem to understand is it's not "how many", it's the degree of discussion that can originate for such characters, something to illustrate why they mattered. You look at it as "I'm not getting my favorite" when the problem is more "nobody in reliable sources is talking about my favorite as an actual character".--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're just going to set yourself up for disappointment if your objection is that the general notability guideline should not work the way it does. There's nothing arbitrary about it, it's set up this way because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Thus, they needed to come up with a standard for what a subject must hit in order to be considered notable enough to have an article. When you gripe about it being arbitrary, what you're griping about is not that there is no reason for why it's this way, you're griping that it is this way. You can maybe propose that WP:GNG be changed, but that will be a lot of effort, with not much of a taste for the change to be made. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will also mention that sourcing is needed to verify notability in a lot of cases. These characters may or may not be notable, but if no sources exist discussing that fact, we can't verify that they are. Either way, I echo Cukie's statement above. The GNG exists for a reason, and any attempt to fundamentally change it is not AfD's job. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:26, 4 March 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.