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. If desired, a proper merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wooloo[edit]

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

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

Nominating this for deletion for the same reasons I nominated Drifloon, but essentially to sum it up, lack of significant coverage. The same coverage can be aquired for most of the other 800+ pokemon:

• Characteristics: This reads like a Pokedex entry. All fictional in-universe information. Can be acquired for any pokemon character.
• Appearances: Just a list of appearances in games and the anime. Again, this could be done for any Pokemon character.
• Reception: Dry surface level commentary that is fluffed up to seem like significant coverage, but it does not arrive at any meaningful conclusions. Same comments about Wooloo being cute over ...and over ...and over ...and over ...and over. There have been so many articles written about Pokemon over the years, that you could generate the same level of commentary for most species.

I'm seeing a lack of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This nomination appears to be malformed and not properly argued on WP:GNG grounds. It is primarily concerned with article content, an editorial concern, as opposed to a proper discernment on whether suitable sources exist. Highlighting that there are 800+ other species or judging their subjective importance within a series is irrelevant, and demanding that a higher bar should be set just for Pokémon material is simply an other stuff exists or WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Why should articles about Pokémon species be scrutinized any differently from all other articles about fictional characters or elements, when they are all covered by WP:GNG and there is no special WP:SNG specifically dedicated to Pokémon articles which lay down rules on what qualities a particular Pokémon species must possess before they are entitled to a standalone article? The only consideration for editors to consider would be, either the subject have WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources or they don't, according to their own interpretation, and that is not hard to establish because the vast, vast majority of Pokémon do not get article-length coverage from a real world perspective anyway. A cursory look at available sourcing, both cited or uncited in this article per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, indicate there is sufficient coverage specifically about the character, and the article does not revolve around in-universe cruft or original research.

Several sources like Polygon reported a series-wide comparison of the character's popularity or significance to species from other generations like this article which is not cited in the article, not just its contemporaries, so the nominator's assertion that there is no credible claim of significance and that it is the "same coverage" for the other 800+ Pokémon is incorrect. A few more from Dot Esports, and US Gamer, suggests that there are more reliable sources out there who have taken notice of the character and that it is certainly not non-notable as represented by the nominator. According to the cited sources, the character somehow spawned a meme, and even PETA decided to get involved, so there is the real world relevance/notability for editors who believe that a topic should be "important to the world" somehow. Not liking the volume of coverage or dismissing critical commentary by professional journalists as vapid is not a valid guideline or policy consideration for deletion. Haleth (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom cites "a lack of significant coverage". There's nothing "malformed" about it. czar 03:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But the nom did not provide a source analysis by explaining why the cited sources or that the potential sources per WP:BEFORE were not suitable, only that "the same coverage can be aquired for most of the other 800+ pokemon" which is objectively untrue. The nomination mainly focused on the quality of the written content, which is inconsistent with the guideline provided by WP:ARTN. The notability guidelines does not indicate that notability of a topic can only be demonstrated by high quality, academically-vetted sources, only that it is reliable and independent/unaffiliated with the subject. This is not a BLP which by nature demands a higher standard of sourcing, and most of the sources do not seem to be promotional by nature in any way. If this was a merge proposal, I may be inclined to vote in favour for a merge, but I don't see any issues with the available sourcing which warrant deletion or that the topic lacks potential. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The nom isn't obligated to perform a source analysis, just as most of the !votes here haven't either. You're welcome to disagree with the nom, but as long as it has a reasonable deletion rationale, it isn't "malformed". czar 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct, AfD nominators are not obligated to do a WP:BEFORE. Nominators who only leave a vague statement that the topic lacks WP:SIGCOV should not be surprised then if they receive criticism that the nomination is overly focused on article content at the time of the nomination as opposed to a proper critique of potential sourcing per the WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN aspects of the WP:GNG guideline, which is in line with Wikipedia's deletion policy. The onus goes both ways, the nominator should articulate why an article on a given topic should be deleted, and should not be entitled to a free pass just because they agitated over a content issue they claim is insurmountable. Anyone who oppose the deletion rationale should state their case, or at least defer to someone who does. Haleth (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Haleth. The controversy surrounding PETA combined with the coverage of the meme give it enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Link20XX (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of generation VIII Pokémon: even with reliable sources cited in the Reception section, they do not deeply cover the subject; the section is just a collection of random mentions, written in a fashion that gives an initial impression of Notability. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of generation VIII Pokémon: The PETA controversy is insufficient to establish notability; when was the last time PETA was taken seriously about anything? The rest of the reception section does not demonstrate enduring notability aside from a small cluster of coverage upon its reveal. They are largely clickbait-type articles, and merely state an opinion on its appearance._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When was the last time PETA was taken seriously about anything?" is not a valid argument for deletion for reasons that should be obvious. "The reception section does not demonstrate enduring notability" is not a valid argument for deletion, as notability is not based on the current quality of the article, it is based on whether reliable sources exist (and Haleth has demonstrated that they do). "They are largely clickbait-type articles" is not a valid reason for deletion; thinking that the coverage is vapid doesn't change the fact that it's significant coverage from a reliable source. Mlb96 (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lack of mentions outside of its announcement is absolutely an indicator that it's non-notable, per WP:SUSTAINED. And let's face it, people aren't constantly writing articles about Wooloo, it was just the meme of the day.

Vapid content is also not significant coverage. That has been established many, many times in AfD, although some people seem to not realize that people use the fact that a source is reliable to justify keeping regardless of how vapid the article content is. Simply because a mention in a reliable source exists does not guarantee it is suitable to use._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except WP:SIGCOV is not concerned with whether the coverage is culturally important or vapid as that is a subjective judgment, but whether coverage of the subject consists entirely of mentions in passing out of a list of other Pokemon within some of the cited sources. "Lack of mentions outside of its announcement" is not true as I am still seeing recent hits on Google, even if they are only mentions as you said so yourself. I can understand concerns that there is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage, but unless we know for certain that there is a complete dearth of all trivial or non-trivial coverage about the topic going forward, I don't think that argument holds water. Either a topic entirely consists of an aggregate of mere passing mentions, or it isn't. As far as I know, there is no guideline that actually exists and vetted by consensus within numerous AfD's as you have claimed, which specifically defines what "vapid content" exactly is or legitimizes under what condition is WP:IDONTLIKEIT a legitimate rationale for deletion. What Wikipedia does prohibit is original research, and I don't see any on the article. I do however, see claims of significance about Wooloo being a "breakout" character among the new Pokemon introduced in the most recent main series game, here and here. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources mentioned by Haleth. Mlb96 (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the PETA controversy, Twilight Wings, and the sources provided by Haleth; this definitly meets WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Bulk of the reception content consists of trivial mentions. Much like the bulk of these recent nominations, it looks well-referenced at a glance, but shows itself to be nothing but fluff when looking at the sources. TTN (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources Haleth mentioned are good and notable enough, and the sources do indicate a significant amount of coverage surrounding this Pokémon, especially compared to a few others that have a page as well (*cough, cough* Drifloon *cough, cough*). This really seems to be a big case of WP:OSE or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I'm not just saying this as a fan of the franchise. Compared to other articles I've edited/worked on recently, even ones that have already been deleted, this is better sourced and some of the arguments for deletion don't entirely seem valid. ChessPiece21 (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of generation VIII Pokémon#Wooloo. This is the same situation as Klefki—the article is jam-packed with vapid sources to the point that it's painful to review. Why are we citing listicle-style brief mentions sources like [1][2][3][4] as the basis for an encyclopedia article? The fact that fans have produced fan art and memes about a Pokemon they deem cute is barely worth citing in the parent list article, nevertheless being the basis for the character's independent notability. With what overabundance of sourcing are we going to write an entire encyclopedia article that does justice to this topic? I was expecting a bunch of sources on PETA per the above discussion but even that is a manufactured controversy with no substance to cite. What are the WP:THREE for this article? It would be a generous stretch to say that any of these sources provide meaningful coverage of real-world perspective on the fictional subject. Same goes for the Polygon, Dot Esports, and USgamer sources cited above. Each provides no basis for speaking to the importance of the character. Polygon's points have already been made by the listicles. Dot Esports is a soft news story in which Wooloo is trivia. USgamer recites basic plot details from an animated short—it is in no way significant coverage, as the nom originally stated. All we have is trivia. I'd expect those reviewing these articles to have a keener eye for that kind of low quality coverage. Nothing worth merging that isn't already said in the list article. czar 03:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to your comment about the lack of coverage on PETA, I can see as examples, three more websites which did not seem objectionable as sources at first glance: one in English, one in German and one in Mandarin Chinese which also weighed in on the PETA issue, but you are of course entitled to your opinion about the coverage being trivial, even though the cited non-listicle sources on the article which does specifically discuss the subject were not addressed. Looking at the page curation log, the NPP editors who did review the article left notability tags, but did not redirect the article back to the list or take it to AfD, so perhaps the issue with notability isn't as insurmountable as you are suggesting. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• None of those three PETA sources are substantive either. This is content of a failed, minor viral marketing campaign written by a breathless games press, not an indication of a tangential character's independent notability. Surely you can see that after these recent noms, right? NPP is doing a minimal assessment of the topic—it isn't their responsibility to adjudicate on the quality or depth of the sources. czar 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not saying it's their responsibility, I am saying that it is within their discretion to do so as part of the role, and indeed, there are countless instances where NPP editors have not hesitated to boldly redirect articles they deem unsatisfactory, or send it to AfD, and surely that would reflect their judgment of the sourcing. PETA is not endorsed by or affiliated with Pokemon's IP owners, and therefore this is not a viral marketing campaign which is promotional in relation to the character, but a publicity stunt since PETA clearly wanted to co opt the character's surge in popularity following the release of the game it debuted in. As someone who does not follow the series and never heard of the character until this AfD, an overview of the non-listicle sources clearly paint a picture that this particular character has achieved some significance to stand out among others: whether there should be a standalone article is another matter entirely. And I don't see how any of the other recent AfD noms involving Pokemon is relevant to this discussion, because not every one had the same outcome, and isn't that just a WP:OSE argument? Haleth (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete per TTN and Czar. It's irresponsible to go on a wikilawyering rant about how the nom doesn't understand policy while offering such inadequate sources as evidence that the article should be kept. Avilich (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per another editor who very recently warned you on your talk page, you are supposed to comment on content or the editing rationale, not make personal attacks on other editors or label them "irresponsible". If you have nothing constructive to add to what TTN and Czar has to say, perhaps your "vote" should be discarded by the closer. Haleth (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Take from the article this source for instance. Basically relates some player's experience in grinding and beating the game with the creature in question. Even if you think "it's possible to beat the game with Wooloo" is encyclopedia-worthy, that's just a single sentence that can fit into a list. Then there's those you posted just above, which are little more than a listing of angry tweets in reaction to an activist group's take on the subject. Fleeting, unencyclopedic, and failing in the basic requirement of significant commentary in reliable secondary sources. Avilich (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The salient point I took from reading that article, as someone who is not interested in Pokemon in the slightest, is that a person interviewed by the article stated the case that the character has become "a sort of pseudo-mascot for the game, with a lot of fan art for Sword and Shield featuring Wooloo", not how to beat the game with just Wooloo. Is it enough by itself to demonstrate notability? Of course not. But there are other sources, cited or otherwise, which do not cover Wooloo as part of a list or in mere passing mentions, and are considered reliable sources independent from the Pokemon IP owners, to consider. And the sources are clear that the character's surge in popularity drew attention from PETA, when the organization could have picked any other Pokemon character for their stunt. That said, at the end of the day, you are still entitled to your opinion. Haleth (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The coverage of the PETA controversy and the meme is enough for notability, standing out from many other Pokemon articles.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge at the very least - Personally I think this article is way too long and detailed to be outright deleted. Looking at the List of gen VIII pokemon though I lean more towards keep than merge bc it wouldn't fit into the table format, there's too much information to merge it there. I agree that some sections could be cleaned up but I don't understand why this went straight to deletion rather than cleaning it up. If it Going through the GNG: 1) significant coverage - the Wooloo has been individually covered in a number of articles cited therefore not trivial mentions, 2) reliable, secondary, and independent sources - some of the sources come from independent news orgs that cover games. Additionally the people arguing that the PETA stunt is insignificant should consider the fact that some PETA stunts related to pokemon have their own page PETA satirical browser games. I will admit though my opinion may be biased bc I'm quite fond of the Wooloo due to one meme that the article doesn't mention that plays on the similarity between the word "Wooloo" and the acronym WLW sometimes pronounced "Wooloowoo" (see the end of this article) Contrawwftw (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2021 (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.