Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PKHeX

PKHeX

[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)

Non-notable utility for Pokemon games. On current sourcing, the article is pretty plainly non-notable as it's entirely sourced from user-generated content or primary sources like the repo itself. However, doing a search, there is some minor reliable coverage on its use in Polygon, Kotaku, VG247 and eSports.net on (1) it being the main way people get hacked pokemon; (2) use of the tool briefly caused a save bug; and (3) its use turns up in eSports cheating [1][2][3][4]. That said, given the current state of the article, and taking the sum of the coverage as a whole, that coverage is not really significant to really describe what the tool is to justify an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relatively easy fix then Charliephere (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sources said by the nom is the following: from SI, Kotaku Polygon. Quality of the article aside, base on sources given, it might be a case of a borderline notable or not notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is quite notable Charliephere (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As explained on the talk page, notability is not a general term but a specific test used to determine which topics are relevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. You can find more information about notability at the general notability guideline. Stating WP:ITSNOTABLE tends not to be helpful in deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - leaning towards a WP:TNT delete or draftify. This article is almost entirely written to unreliable sources. There are reliable sources, but I'm not certain they're really significant coverage, as there's only a few, and they are brief and center more around the general theme of cheating in Pokemon. Almost none of the article's current form can be sourced to what the reliable sources cover on it either. It's a weak case for notability that would need an entire rewrite. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I've been doing research on competitive Pokémon lately and there is a lot of coverage discussing cheating in the competitive scene. However, PKHeX is only one tool used for this. Notability for PKHeX is not inherited from the wider subject of cheating in competitive Pokémon. I plan to rewrite the competitive Pokémon article to include some coverage on cheating at some point, but as of now there's no real viable redirect target for this subject, and not much content that needs preservation here, on a non-notable subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing great work! There's definitely some interesting coverage here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I'm only seeing trivial mentions in secondary sources. Woodroar (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis:
1. Github is a primary source
2. YouTube brings questionable notability, though I will write it off for now as I don't feel like watching a 15 minute YouTube video on Pokemon.
3. The GBATemp source is a forum, user-generated content.
4. Source four is a tutorial for the program. I am not sure who made it but I am going to say that it is self-published.
5. Immediately going into Wololo, I am concerned by the fact that the author goes by a pseudonym. Other than that, coverage is minimal, mostly stating that it can support with Pokemon Sword and Shield.
6. Project Pokemon seems to either be a form or self-published.
7. Github is once again a primary source.
8. Reddit does not establish notability.
9. Source nine is the same as eight?
10. Same faults as six.
11. Same faults as six.
12. Esports Illustrated looks to be a good source.
13. Kotaku has the same justification as Esports Illustrated.
14. Same reasoning as eight

As a result, I am going to say delete. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Youtube Video is an example of the tool being used, it's sort of like one of those indie documenatry videos.

source 4 isnt a SP, it's third party

The information about PKHeX in the wiki isnt wrong though? Charliephere (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is relevant to proving notability in the Wikipedia-sense of the word - WP:NOTABILITY. Sergecross73 msg me 21:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The platform that the sources are coming from shouldn't matter if the content shown in it is objectively showing the truth in the most undeniable fashion, e.g actual recordings of the software being used etc Charliephere (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to your own opinions, but that's flat out not how the notability policy works. Sergecross73 msg me 00:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing reliability with notability. Reliable sources can certainly be primary sources as direct evidence of fact. But we are looking for something else and having a different discussion - finding specific kinds of secondary sources to show that the subject matter is notable to justify writing an article about it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]