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 List of Pokémon (252–319)#Nosepass. Will also need some content merging to List of Pokémon (441–493)#Probopass Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nosepass and Probopass[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only two cites on this article are primary sources from Pokémon video games. There are certain characters like Pikachu which have a clear reception and influence on the real world, but these two, doesn't look like it Valentina Cardoso (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - If you look back in the history, someone removed a chunk of reception. Looking at it, it's just a bunch of clickbait on the basis of the character designs looking bad. Other people may disagree, but I certainly don't see that as establishing true notability. TTN (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This isn't notable in any way. --♫CheChe♫ talk 15:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable Pokémon. Can't really redirect it anywhere because there are two Pokémon mentioned. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WikiProject Pokémon is trying to create full articles for all of the Pokémon. Deleting this page would cause others to follow suit, which would undo their work. SGPolter (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid argument. If a topic doesn't meet Wikiepedia's notability guidelines then it shouldn't have an article. A project's goal has no bearing on this. In the past we've had problems with editors trying to create individual articles for non-notable Pokemon. In fact the WikiProject's page even states that it has been subject to criticism for creating unnecessary stubs and that the eventual consensus was to merge articles of non-notable Pokemon into the list pages. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding onto this, take a look at Wikipedia:Pokémon test. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent RS cover these two Pokemon in a non-trivial manner, and such coverage is already included in the article's references. NONE of the above !votes (including the previous keep) address this. WP:POKEMON does not trump the GNG, and was not written to eliminate standalone articles on otherwise individually notable fictional elements like this one. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whichever List of Pokemon is appropriate for their numbers, per above. As mentioned, the only non-primary sources on either of these Pokemon are just a bunch of trivial "Top Ten" style humor lists that do nothing to establish any sort of widespread notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or redirect) to List of Pokémon (252–319)#Nosepass and List of Pokémon (441–493)#Probopass. Refbombed links to mentions in listicles does not constitute significant coverage for the general notability guideline. Everything this article is currently sourced to say can be summarized in several sentences in the existing list entry, mainly that journalists thought these characters were among the series' worst character designs. Not seeing any more depth to warrant a separate article. Outright deletion would be inappropriate as the page history must be saved for attribution after the merger is complete. czar 01:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator: I'm more or less neutral on whether this page should be kept, but I'll note that its current title as it stands is unsuitable for redirecting (the two Pokemon it mentions belongs in two separate lists). If the final consensus does end up being redirect, this article ("Nosepass and Probopass") should be WP:HISTMERGEd with "Nosepass" (the redirect, which has its own history), before it is then moved to "Nosepass" and suitably redirected to List of Pokémon (252–319)#Nosepass. This solution solves what User:Czar says about maintaining attribution whilst also ensuring there is only one redirect target. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to redirect the combined entry to the first name, as both names will be mentioned there. Much more potential for confusion otherwise when existing links (on- and off-wiki) break. But the closer would be tagging for merge and not immediately redirecting anyway

czar 16:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have attracted some mainstream press attention, even if it is because they're pretty ridiculous. Maybe there's an editorial decision to be made about whether these characters are better covered individually or in a list, but CheCheDaWaff's comment seems to be unfair. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J Milburn's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions in listicles does not constitute significant coverage for independent notability. (See previous discussion in Ken Rosenberg consensus.) If there is a case for keeping instead of merging, it needs to be explicitly made. The article doesn't get enough traffic to warrant a secondary discussion on its talk page. czar 21:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither policy nor guideline; it's a discussion in the archives of one WikiProject (of several) that has a claim to this article. The question is whether this topic meets the GNG; I am seeing coverage, in some cases moderately extensive, from a range of reputable websites which are independent from the subject. I don't feel strongly about this topic at all, but, from where I'm sitting, it appears to meet the GNG. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2016 (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.