- 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 Pokémon anime characters. If you would prefer a different redirect target or to merge some content, please bring the discussion to the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Serena (Pokémon)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Serena (Pokémon) ( | 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)
While the article was declined at AFC, the creator continued to do an end run around the article creation process and publish it anyway, so I have to nominate it for deletion as I do not believe it passes WP:GNG. The reception is very WP:REFBOMBed and relies heavily on listicles. Wikipedia is not FANDOM and articles should show some basic evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. I should also note the WP:NOTHERE style behavior on the part of the article creator, particularly "Little or no interest in working collaboratively", in ignoring the issues with the article and continuing to publish it without approval. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Merge what little of note is there to
List of Pokémon anime characters. Complete wikia-grade content. Reception largely inconsequential passing mentions of game reviews or unreliable sources.
Sergecross73
msg me
13:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also fine with a redirect to Pokemon X/Y too, for the sake of consensus. I really only oppose keeping the article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect' to Pokémon X and Y, where the character originated from. The nomination is correct in that this article is very heavily WP:REFBOMBed. Many of the sources are not from reliable sources, or either only briefly mention the character in general reviews of the game or anime, or don't mention the character at all. When all of these copious amounts of inappropriate references are removed, there is not actually much left, and those mostly fall into the realm of episode/plot summaries for the anime. Her role in the anime is already sufficiently covered at List of Pokémon anime characters and her role in the game is already covered at Pokémon X and Y, and there is nothing that would indicate that the topic needs to be split out into a separate article. Rorshacma ( talk) 14:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Restore redirect to List of Pokémon characters#Protagonists or Pokémon X and Y, preferring those two destinations to List of Pokémon anime characters per Rorshacma. Alyo ( chat· edits) 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Pokémon anime characters, per Roschacma. Serena demonstrates no notability outside of being a supporting character in the XY anime. I don't think the article should be redirected to Pokémon X and Y, or List of Pokémon characters#Protagonists, as the character has barely any notability in X and Y and is largely characterized in the anime. DecafPotato ( talk) 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep- There are good sources for Serena, almost all of them are exclusively about the anime.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] I would say that these cause it to pass
WP:GNG, albeit barely. If it were to get redirected though, redirect to
List of Pokémon anime characters.
(Oinkers42) (
talk)
01:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Screenrant and CBR are terrible sources. The Polygon is a decent source, but Pocketgamer is basically a name drop. --
ferret (
talk)
02:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Screen Rant is seen as reliable for entertainment-related articles that are not BLP and CBR is situational, with the author being an editor on the site and had created over 100 articles. I think both of these should be fine. (Oinkers42) ( talk) 03:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Screenrant and CBR are terrible sources. The Polygon is a decent source, but Pocketgamer is basically a name drop. --
ferret (
talk)
02:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Restore Redirect In-depth secondary reliable coverage is not here. GNG isn't met. The article is full of linkbomb and fluff, such as a lengthy sentence about Gamespot's review of the game that barely refers to the character. Numerous unreliable sources are present, a third the reception uses primary sources, and there's a heavy reliance on Comicbook.com and Valnet properties (CBR, Screenrant, Gamerant), churnalism sites that hold a "situational source" label at best. Even if they were reliable, there is a lot of misuse, such as multiple sources about a specific episode being used. The sources cover the episode and it's events, which of course requires mentioning the character, but does not represent in-depth analysis of the character. If the misused Gamespot review, CBR/Comicbook/Screenrant/Gamerant, and Primary/unreliable sources were removed from reception, there would be one source left, SoraNews. Surprise, that source is about the kiss episode and how Ash is 10 years old and barely mentions Serena. -- ferret ( talk) 02:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Restore redirect. Ferret's source assessment is on the money. It should be codified that these outlets are insufficient for notability, if they should even be cited at all, rather than repeating the same story at every video game fictional character AfD.
czar
19:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Good idea. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Merge. While I concur that sources fail WP:SIGCOV and occasionally, WP:RS, I think the reception section has some value and would prefer to see it merged to one of the targets mentioned earlier. The creator may not fully understand some aspects of current Wikipedia standards (like SIGCOV) but their work is nonetheless a net positive, if resued responsibly. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge: I agree with the assessment of the sources, and this issue has come up perennially at WP:VG/RS. No one, including myself, has been able to really codify the best advice on how to handle lower quality sources, or journalism that's largely driven by social media such as this [5]. It's not that these subjects shouldn't be covered, but that a full article based on these sources becomes nearly pointless, as a WP:COATRACK of random news clippings that mention the subject. I've tried to get some discussions going on how to handle this kind of "journalism", but I think we are still some ways off from a concrete proposal. Sometimes I think we should deprecate CBR/Comicbook/Screenrant/Gamerant as reliable sources, but I believe a proportional solution will be more nuanced than that. In the meantime, I see a frequent consensus that this kind of sourcing isn't appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Shooterwalker ( talk) 14:41, 21 September 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.