Talk:Piranha Plant

What makes the Piranha Plant independently notable from the series? The appearances section is filled with trivia, there's nothing about the creation of the character, and the reception section says nothing of value. Almost everything here would fit in the list. Also worth noting that I'm pretty sure this page was created by Raymondskie99, a blocked sockpuppeteer. JOEBRO64 18:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It seems like this was done in haste solely because of Smash Bros Ultimate. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The sources don't discuss the character as being
  independently notable from the series. I don't see why the redirect was contested. czar 05:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per the above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as the user who contested the redirect (don't worry, I'm not a sock), I'd argue that with a bit of cleaning up and addition of sources, notability could be established. It's a notable figure in the history of video games - sources establish this, but they just need integration into the page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - After reading the article and above responses I can understand all sides here. With the way the article is written now I do think merging is warranted however Paintspot brings up a good point after clean-up and addition of more sources this could be a standalone article. Even adding some information about the creation of the character would help the article out as well. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 05:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Per TheJoebro64's reasons. EthanRossie2000 ^discuss 9:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support not big enough to keep.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per Joe and Dissident. One of the arguments on the page history recently was that things had changed on the last decade or whatever since the last merge discussion, but that doesn’t strike me as particularly accurate -outside of the Smash appearance, very little has changed. It’s still primarily just a stock background enemy character in a video game series. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the article received substantial improvement since the proposed merge. Piranha Plants are just as notable as other articles about Mario enemies, such as the
  talk) 00:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • While I'm neutral about any sort of votecount reset, I agree with your argument about notability! You raise some good points. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a good argument for keeping. The Koopa and Hammer Bro articles are both poorly written and say absolutely nothing meaningful about the characters. As Dissident noted above, the article seems to have been created just because it's playable in Smash. A vote recount would not do anything to change the fact that a majority of users oppose this being an article. JOEBRO64 00:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The announcement of Piranha Plant as a playable character in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate looks to have triggered a new wave of mentions and write-ups in reliable and independent sources. That, plus the stuff that was already there pushes it into GNG territory in my opinion. The only source that bugs me is the one from Nintendo, but even then you're left with 16 references from such reliable sources as Kotaku and Joystiq. Americanfreedom (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you even looked at the sources? They're all just "Top X" lists that don't explain why the character is notable in any way. Since there seems to be a lot of "it's in Smash so it's notable" arguments here, I'm asking for more input from
    WT:VG. JOEBRO64 19:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Support Merge. There isn't any indepth coverage specifically about the character. And there really can't be, because it's just a basic enemy / side character. There's nothing independent of game appearances, essentially. There's no story or plot or character development for sources to cover, and so expansion in the future is exceedingly unlikely. In addition, UtopianPoyzin's call for a votecount reset due to "substantial improvement since proposed merge" is... misguided at best, deceptive at worse. Literally nothing at all has changed in this article since Joebro's bold redirect except that an unsourced sentence was removed (diff). Not a single new source has been added. Also, backing up the claim that the article was created (un-redirected) by a blocked sockmaster, as I was personally involved in researching that series of blocks and sockpuppets. I missed restoring the redirect on this one while deleting other articles the sockpuppets had made. The article is almost still word for word what the blocked sockmaster originally wrote, with only a few word tweaks and a couple removed sentences (diff). There's been literally no improvements at all. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sock issues aside, the article is dreadful. We just have a list of fictional appearances, and a weak reception section. The character has no demonstrated real world significance. The "Oppose" votes above cite "a notable figure in the history of video games" and "a history that deserves to be represented" but I'm not seeing any of that in the article. TarkusAB^talk 20:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Too many fictional character articles. This one's pretty obscure. No need. Works better in a list. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]