Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Togepi

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 redirect to List of generation II Pokémon. ✗plicit 23:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Togepi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Togepi (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)

Not WP:NOTABLE enough for its own article, Jumps in and out of WP:GAMECRUFT and MOS Fiction. And in general, not an article for Wikipedia, Perhaps bulbapedia would be a better place. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of generation II Pokémon. I agree that it miserably fails WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV in terms of reception worth noting. The reception that is there is a bit ridiculous and shows that pretty much anything was searched for even a minor mention of the character with no regard for how much sense it makes in context. The character's importance is still not established. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Looks a lot like WP:REFBOMB has happened here. The problem is that while significant effort has clearly been taken to make Togepi look notable on its own, a skim of the references reveals the opposite. Sources are not focused on the article subject itself. Much of the content is in-universe. The reception is effectively stitched together from passing mentions. Certainly no harm in a redirect, though. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to said list, and I want to stress, merge, not redirect. Half if not more of the reception, while cobbled from passing mentions, all failing WP:SIGCOV, can be preserved in that list. It's a bit disappointing that most of my similar suggestions to merge and not just redirect such Pokemon content have often been ignored. I do wonder if User:BOZ would like to make a list of such articles to merge from redirect... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is an issue with large amounts of irrelevant information cropping up in the Notes section of these lists. A List of Pokemon is meant to serve as a casual reference, if people wish to know indepth reception that is why Bulbapedia is there. Given that Bulbapedia will always be superior to any coverage in Wikipedia under the rules, don't really see the point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of generation II Pokémon per Zxcvbmn. Judging by the article, nothing seems to suggest that this pokemon is notable. Heck even in the franchise, Togepi is only notable for the anime. The sources aren't even talking about Togepi directly, secondary sources that is. Also as Zxcvbmn said, Bulbapedia is a better place to search for this pokemon. CaptainGalaxy 16:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to the Gen 2 list. I'll be sad to see this one go, though. I love the "pleasantly plump and fatty" part. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect per above sentiments. Don't be fooled by the massive reference list, it's a WP:REFBOMB situation, and the reception is filled with inane and useless passing mentions. Source called Togepi "a fatty", another source ranked in 93rd place in a listicle, etc. Nothing of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Merge as an alternative to deletion. Some of the contents are viable for preservation, as noted by Piotrus. Haleth (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Haleth Can you please specify what parts specifically are viable for preservation? :) PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Some of the promotional stuff like Eggo, Burger King and the airplane which are backed up by RS? Why are you directing that question at me and not Piotrus since he was the one who stressed on the merge? Haleth (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  Because you !vote'd to merge, and niether of you were too specific on what should remain. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  The specifics are a matter for editorial discretion and is irrelevant to an AfD discussion. It is quite common, and in fact encouraged by Wikipedia deletion guidelines, to suggest an alternative if there appears to be some content worth preserving. It's all according to individual judgment so your mileage may vary. Haleth (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  I see, thanks for informing me. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to the Gen 2 list due to lack of significant and reliable coverage. Bulbapedia's a thing, after all. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of generation II Pokémon. I would normally say keep, based on the fact there's been coverage in IGN, Comicbook.com, Game Rant, Screen Rant, etc, but we had a giant mess before where every single Pokémon species had their own individual articles, before most of them got merged. There are about a thousand or so Pokemon species now and having an article on every single of them is just going to be a case of WP:NOTBULBAPEDIA. If we don't keep the list of articles on fictional elements under control, we're just going to turn into Fandom, and that's an issue that goes beyond just sourcing and notability.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

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.