Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snorlax

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snorlax[edit]

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

Snorlax (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)

I feel this one may be particularly controversial as Snorlax is often seen as iconic in the context of the games. However with that said trying to find sources saying anything substantial beyond "It's awesome" and "it eats and sleeps a lot" has proven fruitless, and even the book reference is admittedly pretty weak re-reading it in the context of what's being said. Snorlax is an awesome design, but like a lot of characters suffers from a properly where nothing significant has been said about that to pass notability or SIGCOV. Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Zxcvbnm: a lot of those aren't discussing Snorlax, or are only tangentially related to it (the copy article for example is a lot more about the effectiveness of Pokemon Go, I mean it literally diverts to the cops going after a different Pokemon), same with the Pokemon Go paywall article. The scientific papers on Google Scholar on Snorlax's obesity was also noticed but reading through them what exactly do you *cite* here? I mean don't get me wrong, I really would be happy if you proved me wrong in this subject, I'm 100% not being factious here, but what's to even cite for these sources?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll answer that by asking if they would have gone to catch it if it wasn't Snorlax. It shows Snorlax has some sort of cultural cachet ("Holy crap. Finally... the guys are going to be so jealous."), which is evidence of notability, which is precisely what we're looking for here - evidence that Snorlax is somehow more important than other Pokemon in some way.
    I also struggle to see how you would interpret something like the Polygon article as being "only tangentially related" to Snorlax. The entire article is describing a possibly deliberate 20 year gambit to make Snorlax look like it's waking up, in line with its character design. Another one shows how Snorlax was the figurehead of an entire advertising campaign "Project Snorlax". We already have an article for Year of Luigi and this is pretty similar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That first reasoning feels kinda...original research-y? I'm going to be honest with you the fact it immediately jumped to another Pokemon didn't help there. As for the polygon article that's the significant one. With Project Snorlax that's a bit under promotion, and unless you've seen some reaction articles to it I haven't I don't know. I strongly feel these are reaching.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ZX. There is WP:SIGCOV on this article based on WP:BEFORE. The Kotaku and Dot Esports articles definitely work, though they should be placed in the article. Conyo14 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going to quickly point out the subject of the Kotaku article mentioning the developer Snorlax is based on is already covered by two sources in the article itself, and does not offer any new commentary towards the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and this means, what? Repetitive sourcing counts towards notability--which is in question here, correct?--even if it doesn't add new facts to be V'ed. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a secondary source citing simply who the character was based on. That's it. How does that demonstrate notability, @Jclemens:.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've answered this in my keep !vote below, but let's turn the question around: Where in the notability guidelines does it say that the subject of independent, non-trivial, reliable sourcing can undermine a source's use for notability? I'd be genuinely shocked if you found it anywhere outside of maybe a user-space essay, because I'm relatively certain that's not actually a thing. And, of course, once you've been shown to be playing fast and loose interpreting guidelines in such a weirdly inaccurate interpretation favorable to your desired outcome... no amount of badgering helps. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are definitely sources to work with regarding the article.
I found, for instance, this Journal of Interdisciplinary Science Topics, Volume 5 - Google Books This goes into scientific coverage on Snorlax's weight and BMI.
An Introduction to Language (w/ MLA9E Updates) - Google Books This book uses Snorlax as an example of language and syntax, though I can see this one being iffy.
There's also, for instance, this source about police officers going after a Snorlax in Pokemon GO instead of going after a burglar. LAPD officers fired for catching a Snorlax instead of a burglar denied appeal - The Verge
Pokémon-inspired Las Vegas street names feature Jigglypuff Place, Snorlax Lane | Eurogamer.net Snorlax was a street name in this part of Las Vegas (Alongside many others, but it definitely shows notability)
There's also this thing called Project Snorlax which The Pokemon Company launched. While not showing real world impact, this can be used to improve coverage. The Pokemon Company launches new 'Project Snorlax' Twitter account | Shacknews
Pokemon Go trainers call for “favorite” Snorlax event to return - Dexerto There's commentary on players calling for an event dedicated to Snorlax to return, which shows significant interest in the character.
And this is via a brief search. Combined with what @ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ found, I'd say this is more than enough to justify the article being kept around. I haven't even completed my search and I already found all of this.
I do feel this should've been a Merge Discussion with List of Generation I Pokemon, as is currently the case with the ongoing Lugia and Wooloo discussions, but in any case, this article is a definite keep. Unlike Lugia, there are actually a lot of genuinely viable and notable sources to work with that go in depth on the character or demonstrate significant notability. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, let's have a source analysis then:
  1. The first is a scientific study saying humans with a BMI akin to Snoralx's would leave an unhealthy lifestyle. Again, how does one properly cite that? Even Zx noted above it might be a weird one and it's the strongest one offered here.
  2. The book about language is also a bit iffy and doesn't offer anything that can be cited...
  3. The second is a statement on the success of Pokemon go, and Snorlax's presence in the article could easily be swapped for any other rare Pokemon in Pokemon Go. There's no commentary saying Snorlax in particular was highly popular enough that they would go after it, and they quickly went after a Togetic next, followed by them reasoning that Pokemon Go could be seen as a social event.
  4. The Street holds the same relevance as Jigglypuff and Charmender being mentioned in there: reading the article, the names are not being chosen because of a particular significance for the pokemon, but the franchise's weight and running out of street names.
  5. Project Snorlax in and of itself is promotion, and much like with Year of Luigi, gives notability to the character itself when the character is being *discussed in the context therein*. Thus far the most that has arisen from it is Pokemon Sleep, which didn't give additional commentary towards Snorlax.
  6. Dexerto could be argued more about Pokemon Go again, but a bigger problem is the website itself is marked flat out unreliable via WP:VG/S.
@Pokelego999: That's the problem with all these sources. Snorlax is *mentioned* a lot, but not actually *discussed*, and most of them are about other subjects with only the Pokemon being mentioned. Also I will point out that many of those sources were already mentioned by Zx and argued about above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I seem to have missed that he already mentioned the police incident as well as some of the Project Snorlax stuff. In any case, though, it seems relatively simple to cite the sources in the reception section. For instance, you could say something like "Frances Tennant, writing for the book "Journal of Interdisciplinary Science Topics, Volume 5," analyzed Snorlax's intake and calculated its total body mass index while analyzing its unhealthy lifestyle." While this is whipped up relatively quickly and can be written way better than I did it, it's not impossible to utilize, as it does display significant analysis and coverage of the subject. A brief reference to Snorlax's usage in the language book can also be added, as while you can't really quote it too effectively, it is something to include as a reference. Perhaps a brief line such as "Snorlax was utilized in an analysis of syntax in "An Introduction To Language..." As for the street source, while yes, it is one of many Pokemon used here, the fact it was chosen out of the current 1000+ species in existence is demonstrative of significant notability from the source material. While it's not entirely going to make or break the article, it demonstrates that Snorlax is notable enough and distinct enough as a Pokemon of the series that it was selected for something like this.
As for Project Snorlax, I'm not saying that right now it deserves a reference in the reception section, but it definitely helps in expansion of the article. Being part of a whole promotional wave increases coverage on the subject.
Thanks for pointing out the Dexerto source, I was unaware of the fact it couldn't be used. In any case, though, I did do another check for sources and found these.
Tom Brady Makes Snorlax Pokemon Card with His Huge Sideline Coat | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report
While I'm uncertain how good of a source the site is, this one does show a famous celebrity making reference to Snorlax, which does demonstrate notability.
Snorlax Goes All Out Week to Promote Pokemon Sleep (clutchpoints.com)
This article also provides some commentary on Snorlax and Project Snorlax.
P4_4 Snorlax used Body Slam | Yeomans | Physics Special Topics (le.ac.uk) Also found this paper, which analyzes Snorlax's power in attacking.Occupy_Rhetorical_Citizenship_An_Analysis_of_Civic_Action_through_Images_and_Video_of_the_UC_Davis_Pepper_Spraying-libre.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)
Also found this paper discussing it in depth as an allegory and how it can be used to explain complicated situations to children.
There were a few other potential Scholar hits but I couldn't access them thanks to paywalls, so I'm unsure on if they discuss Snorlax in depth or not. In any case, there definitely is significant coverage on the subject in this field.
I have to disagree a bit in the sense that Snorlax isn't just mentioned a lot. Quite a few of these sources are mentioning it in some depth, and the fact it was referenced in several in depth analysis does say a lot. I'm not saying it's Pikachu in terms of sourcing, but Snorlax has a lot going for it. There is generally a lot of independent, notable coverage on it. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not meaning offense Pokelego999, but a lot of these sources just aren't saying anything that can be cited for notability.
  1. The Tom Brady coat thing is more "he wore a coat that looked liked Snorlax". There's nothing said about the character like that, it's barely trivia.
  2. Second source is Project Snorlax descriptions and not even commentary, worth mentioning in the article yes but doesn't help the notability problem.
  3. The physics paper is in line with the other paper, where you can mention briefly scientific studies were done about aspects of them, so there is that.
  4. This paper has potential but it's not published, which is a roadblock.
  5. Guessing the allegory is probably already cited in the article from the sounds of it.
Ultimately the main problem is yes, you're going to find a LOT of sources mentioning him. But the lack of discussion is the problem, there's nothing discussed that satisfies notability. Try and sit down and cite statements from these sources you're throwing out here; see what you're able to come up with without having to reach into OR territory.
Also going to add that just because a character has been referenced in something such as a street name in the above article, if there's no additional commentary it doesn't really equate to notability. At most it's worth a blurb, but if we're going by the death by 1000 cuts approach it can be really rough in the long term and could be seen as WP:REFBOMBING.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually realize my fourth source wasn't published. It came up via Scholar so I just assumed it was. The allegory to my knowledge is not currently cited in the article, and is separate from the "Make Believe Worlds" citation. I definitely see your REFBOMBING concern via the Brady source, but I still wished to bring it up in any case. A significant celebrity made use of the character, which demonstrates the notability of said character. The fact that the comparison was drawn between Brady and Snorlax shows the character is recognizable just from visuals alone.
In any case, there really isn't a notability problem. I've seen Wikipedia articles be kept around while having way less sources to work with. The fact we have several studies and pieces of scientific analysis of and/or utilizing Snorlax basically shows notability in and of itself, and the fact we have several other articles describing it in depth also helps demonstrate notability. We have coverage, impact, analysis, and even some developmental information. I'd say that's more than enough to establish Snorlax as a notable character in the grand scheme of things. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eurogamer and Kotaku sources are independent, non-trivial RSes: the former shows real world impact, the latter shows origin, and neither type of coverage is routinely present for non-notable topics. That is, not only are these two sources sufficient of themselves, but they are a strong indicator that the topic is truly notable, despite the nom's curiously persistent, and non-policy-based, complaints about certain sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I think it's among the weakest articles about Pokemon species at the moment, but there is something at least. That said, we do need to be careful not to simply cite articles based on whether Snorlax is merely mentioned. For example, the police article, Snorlax is completely tangential. You can argue that Snorlax is a vital aspect, but that's original research. The article itself needs to assert that to be the case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The overwhelming majority of Pokémon articles are not going to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; there are over one thousand Pokémon now and most aren't going to be notable, even if they are one of the 151 of the first generation Pokémon (which is reflected in how many entries at List of generation I Pokémon currently have articles). However there are of course exceptions to that generalization, and I have to agree with the assessment and sources of zxcvbnm that WP:GNG is met here. It's not the cultural juggernaut that Pikachu is, but there's enough there to fall just enough into the "notable" side of WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The deletion argument has been reduced to something like: "although Snorlax is independently covered in an enormous number of independent reliable sources, it is not covered in-depth in any independent reliable sources." I think that's been effectively responded to above. When Target is full of pillows of a character and people are naming streets after it, it's notable, and people should be able to turn to Wikipedia to understand what it is. - Astrophobe (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Damn, I never thought I'd see the day when Snorlax of all things is nominated for deletion, and yet where we are. Deletionism gone wild? A significant amount of sourcing exists, as a WP:VG/RS custom search shows. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 11:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would dispute the notion of this being deletionism gone wild; Snorlax is one of the weakest articles about a Pokémon species that currently exists, I would say, even with the sources not yet included in the article. It's held together by spit and dreams. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's snowing Keep Per everyone above Dusti*Let's talk!* 14:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources to establish notability for the character. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Snorlax is a significant character in Pokémon and there are enough sources to establish notability. 1keyhole (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to his notability and that the page already has a reception/analysis section, meaning it's not all in-universe. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:34, 11 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Snorlax&oldid=1169882461"