Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucario (3rd nomination)

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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucario

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Regretfully, I am forced to nominate Lucario for deletion, as there's no evidence that the concerns of the previous AfD this year were addressed in recreating the article. I went into the article legitimately hoping that new solid sources were found to back up the notability of Lucario but ultimately found nothing - it's largely sourced to listicles that often discuss numerous other Pokemon besides Lucario.

Ultimately what the previous AfD this year found remains exactly the same, Lucario simply isn't notable at all. Again, it would be great to be proven wrong, but what I see here does not cut the mustard or merit a recreation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite Zx's assertion that these are "listicles", I will assert that they do discuss the subject in a decent enough amount of coverage to display its importance outside of just being a character in the context of the series:

We have tangible results illustrating the character's recognizability and popularity, through a poll by the company, a monthly average of search engine results across multiple companies, and one regarding...er..."fan works".
Analysis of why the character is popular and that impact
Analysis of it's design, both positive and negative, and more importantly an example of the shortcomings of "Gen 4"'s design as a whole

Now while I get this isn't the strongest of articles, I will contend after the sources presented the article demonstrates real world notability in the same way Snorlax was argued to during its AfD: that it's a recognizable icon, and unlike Snorlax, I can at least cite some discussion here. While I'd personally agree the article is on the weaker end, what's cited here I feel demonstrates that in the manner it was presented. Thank you.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article you can pick out from the article's sources of any significant length that is specifically about Lucario. That already makes it far weaker in coverage than Snorlax. I don't think the two are comparable. If I asked for the WP:THREE they'd all be clickbait top-10 lists and that is a bad sign.

I am also not particularly enthused about your wholesale reversion of my edits to the article in an attempt to at least remedy some of its problems. I do not see a reason for doing so besides "I don't like these edits", which is going dangerously into WP:OWN territory. Editors do not unilaterally control articles, please open a discussion instead of simply deleting anything you do not like. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the additions came across as trivial and were why I avoided those from the original article (i.e. the Sly Cooper comparison is...odd), and that the recurring comment about its possible origin isn't dev info. Additionally the articles cited discuss him in some degree of depth, and WP:THREE is an essay, not a strict guideline: it's purpose is to help one argue for an article's existence. In this case, I feel the print source (which in turn cited Official Nintendo Magazine's Thomas Elliot calling it "the best designed Pokemon" in its universe, but I felt that may have been non-independent quote given who produced ONM so I opted not to cite that), TechRaptor, and The Gamer's own analysis which go into depth and devoted several paragraphs to discussing the subject). I am confused too at your assertion of "clickbait"; they are, again, discussing the subject at hand not tricking the reader, so that was...weird to bring up?

The point of notability is to establish that a subject is discussed and there's significant enough discussion on a subject to warrant an encyclopedic look at it. There are sources that I could have cited that you've argued for before, like articles like this that you felt were strong enough for Felyne, or content like this that you argued worked as WP:SIGCOV for Sagat (Street Fighter). But I felt those didn't provide notability due to a lack of discussing the work as a fictional character.

The article is organized the way it is on purpose. While I spoke in anger, it isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's intended to give a proper flow to the reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:THREE is an essay, but WP:GNG is the policy. Thus far no sources have been raised that show this subject meets the notability guidelines. We are looking for significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources that discuss Lucario as a subject. What do we have? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy🏄 The TechRaptor article devotes four paragraphs of discussion to the character. The Gamer, while it can be argued shouldn't count towards notability per WP:VG/S, devoted 3 paragraphs in their own discusison. IGN had one author devote a paragraph each to discussing the character across two articles. The Centennial article devoted several paragraphs discussing the subject but admittedly some were for gameplay and intended to be cited for there if the article was further developed. Outside of this article there is also this paper published in Scandia that discusses it in the context of the film and relation to medieval imagery as a familiar, but I wasn't sure the best way to work that in or if it was more for the film. It could be bolstered by additional sources from The Gamer but I didn't want to work more valnet into this.

While I'll admit this article is weaker, I feel the assertions in the AfD argument are trying to paint it as strictly relying on UGO.com or Complex style lists that aren't saying anything, when there are tangible thoughts at least being cited. The assertion of "clickbait" is, at the very least, unfounded.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have some reading to do then. I'll take a look at these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the current reliable references demonstrating notability from both a critical and audience perspective as well as the arguments presented by Kung Fu Man, I don't exactly see a reasonable cause for why this article should be deleted given how this article generally falls in line with notability presented in other similar articles. The Scandia article is especially of note given how it's a direct analysis into the influence that would later inspire Lucario's role in his dedicated film. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Despite my previous afd on Lucario (2nd nomination), I feel like it might be barely passing WP:GNG after the improvement of reception section (furry fandom and stuff). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokémon: Lucario and the Mystery of Mew - The best source presented is clearly the Scandia paper, which is a goood source, clearly meeting GNG. However, the paper discusses the character within the context of the film, as Kung Fu Man said. So we have a page on the film, that could be expanded on the subject of the introduction of Lucario. There is mergeable content here regardless of whether this page is kept or not. But then, should this page exist in its own right? There is no real case at this point for a spin out of the Lucario character from the film article. We aren't even close to size arguments for that. The question is whether there is significant coverage that treats the character apart from the film. The problems with TheGamer were admitted but WP:VG/S also raises issues with Techraptor. In both cases, arguments could be made that the articles in these can be reliable and independent, but from where I am coming from, I don't see articles listing characters as being good examples of secondary sources. This, I think, is what the nom. means by listicles. It is the Pokemon franchise that is notable, and because it's notable, we get lists of the characters, but these don't really speak to significance of the character outside of the franchise, and notability is not inherited. So at this point I feel that we have to cover Lucario per the Scandia article, but the place to cover that is in the film article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sort of torn on this one. Still thinking about whether it is sound to base notability from self-evident cultural significance inferred from very broad but shallow coverage, even if few sources really cover or analyse the subject matter in detail. I am mindful that the character articles deletion trend is a little mired in a difference of philosophy over notability, and I think it would help to have better guidance or more discussions over what approach is best as there's been a lot of these sort of articles deleted recently. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is whether an article is notable if literally all coverage of any significance comes from blatant content farm articles, which listicles are.

I'd say the answer is "absolutely not", because content farming is literally an attempt to flood the internet with minor and trivial content in order to game the search results. Its the antithesis of the reason the significant coverage criteria exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I blatantly disagree with that assertion that they're "content farm articles". Tangible thoughts are being cited here on the character and why it's important. It's not "10 THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS CHARACTER" or "What reddit thinks about THIS!" It's thought out statements that are discussing what it is and either critiquing its design or importance, and to a smaller extent its recognizability, which many articles on here are built around to the same degree. Including a few I'll note by you or works you've argued for in the past.

You can argue it's on the weaker end of notability, I'd argue bigger sources would indeed be nice. But it discusses the character significantly in an encyclopedic tone for reception and establishes importance to those not familiar with the media. That's what notability is for.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do not see any reason to delete this. I believe the article is notable enough to stay, and Lucario's pretty popular within the Pokémon fandom. Again, I believe it should stick around, as it’s pretty notable. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSPOPULAR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So while digging through Japanese sources, found that the character was used to promote fitness for children across Japan for young children, which was done by video during COVID, and then directly post COVID. There's also a LOT of articles discussing that, not only the 'why' but with some giving reactions to it/the character and its usage.[1][2][3]. There's also the Pokéfuta manhole project, which had the character promoting that directly as well. I'm still digging through Japanese sources but yeah, that's a thing.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1: It is mostly restating a press release. It's arguably more of a WP:PRIMARY source. Source 2: Trivial mention of Lucario. Source 3: Same exact press release as in Famitsu, duplicate source. This can all be summed up in one sentence, "Lucario was used to promote fitness in kids". Re: the manholes, a massive amount of Pokemon featured in that project, so it doesn't really involve Lucario specifically. It's more something to note in a possible "Cultural impact of Pokemon" article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Famitsu article states why the character was chosen for the promotion: "ルカリオは『ふくつのこころ』と『せいしんりょく』を特性として持つポケモンです。" and it mentions it again in the article and a few others, so yes, the use of the character was specific. I'll point out, again, in the past you argued a street named after Snorlax along with several other Pokemon counted significantly towards its notability, despite no reason given as to why that name was chosen. Additionally you argued in the past this counted as notability for Felyne, despite being a promotion that, again, didn't discuss the why. Why do those meet the threshold but here where there's a reason given as to why these don't?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IGN article isn't a copypaste of the press release, it has original content there. It is a secondary source with analysis of the information. Famitsu is literally a press release that was posted verbatim on another site. These are primary sources. Not secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other articles covering the character's usage in this manner: 4Gamer, GameSetWatch, 5channel and 47News for example. These are not all press releases, but secondary sources. You're moving the goal posts.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them, unless you really want to argue the newscast reacting in surprise was. SoraNews24 also covered it, and while not discussed on WP:VG/S as far as I can see they are cited in several books under their new and old name (RocketNews24) and in published works on Google Scholar. Come on guys, please stop making me chase the goal.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While it is important for the article to grow more notable, I feel like the issues at AfD have been adequately addressed. Particularly, its use as a mascot, commentary on its design, and the furry angle are intriguing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on more or less Kung Fu Man's initial argument. There is enough discussion here volumewise to fullfill WP:WHYN. And if sources are considered reliable in the context of video games, I am not much concered if they are structured in the form of a list or not. Daranios (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is some sustained coverage on Lucario. It is significant coverage, but also not very deep. In some cases, that coverage is described in excessive detail to emphasize the coverage is indeed significant coverage in a way that gives it undue weight. But at the end of the day it's there, and its scarcely enough. That the commentary is fixated on comparing Lucario to Mewtwo, Anubis or Digimon still belies the fact that these are independent and analytical ideas, just shallow ones. Depth of ideas in significant coverage is secondary to whether it provides enough of a perspective to inform an article without inference, which it does. That said, I think the practice of stuffing nominated articles with unnecessary detail to 'protect' notability is not really necessary and clutters the article. But there's also been a lot of good work done too. That said, I guess the next step for this article is a bit of a cleanup. But that's not a notability issue. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While none of the sources are particularly great they all are about Lucario. There is coverage. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It's certainly weaker than some other articles but it definitely has enough to stand on its own for now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:43, 20 December 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.