User talk:MatthewHoobin/Archive 1

This is an archive of past talk page discussions between 2013–2016. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia, MatthewHoobin! Thank you for your contributions. I am PBASH607 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! The Grand Cenobite (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for being unnecessarily newbie-biting. Anyway:

• High resolution is discouraged for nonfree images like movie posters; see WP:Image resolution.
• Lists like the movies in The 100 Scariest Movie Moments are actually copyrighted to their creator, so we can't just reproduce full lists here.

Trivialist (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Back to the Future Part II, the IMDb page you cited says, "It was in the late 1980s when the concept of CGI was starting, however in the film, very few CGI effects were actually needed." It's my recollection that most of the DeLorean effects were done with miniatures, but if you can find a source that says otherwise, please cite it. Trivialist (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Matthew - Thank you for reviewing my new article on the Varna Opera Theater. I am learning how to contribute, and have been doing much of my contribution by hitting the 'Random' feature, then doing some research on underreported subjects. It makes me feel like an anonymous medieval monk adding illuminated letters to the Wikipedia illuminated manuscript... I just hope I'm keeping it correct, so thanks for the look over! Bill McKenna (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The criteria for films to be included in List of films considered to be the worst is that there must be reviews from reliable sources that call the film the "worst ever made" or something to that equivalent. Airbender has been discussed extensively on the talk page previously and has been denied every time because so far no such sources exist. It is notable for negative reception, but not the worst of all time. If you look at the top of the 2010s section you will notice that there is a warning not to readd Airbender to the list without discussing first.LM2000 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A few of those sources look like ones that have been discussed before and we've taken issue with it. It's worth a discussion amongst the rest of the community to see if they agree with you though. Take it to the talk page first, like I said there's already a warning not to add it without discussion, and you've already been reverted twice and I wasn't the one to revert you the second time.LM2000 (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I've had run ins with this guy too but you can't go reverting his edits to his talk page. You're putting yourself in the wrong which will only benefit him. Read the guidelines (somewhere) about user talk pages. That he deleted your "um no" is is proof that he read it. Let him revert and say rubbish all he wants on his talk. Also, if your steaming then you should take a break. All the best. SlightSmile 22:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't followed your edits so I can't really say who's side I'm on. I know a year ago he was reverting me to an incorrect version and not letting go. I walked away. Thankfully I haven't run into him again. I notice that you're from here. We don't get many Nebulians here. SlightSmile 00:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: My comments in this section were located on Bignole's talk page. My opinions in this section may not reflect any opinions that I currently hold. I also act very proud of my user page here. I can get full of myself.

I never knew that about how the marketing and copyright spell the "two" differently. Well, you learn something new every day. Cool. --Matthew (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not even the only one. Friday the 13th Part V is actually, Friday the 13th: A New Beginning, even though the poster has "Part V". A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 is actually A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2 (though, some editors won out a debate to keep the "Part" dropped from the title because of the poster.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then. On a different topic, what's your favourite horror movie? But since that can be pretty difficult to narrow down, how about your three favourites? --Matthew (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Friday the 13th is my favorite horror franchise (with Part 4,6, FvJ, and the remake my favorites within the franchise). I'm more of an old-school slasher film fan. I like all the greats (Nightmare, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw). I really like some newer horror films like The Descent or Black Water, which do a great job of building suspense through non-horror elements first, instead of just going for cheap scares. What about yourself?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorta similar for me, really. With Nightmare I liked 1 and 3, and I also liked Freddy's Dead even though everyone hated it. New Nightmare was also pretty good. I'm still watching the Friday series, so the next one on my list is the eighth where he's on a boat (as I've heard), but out of those I liked the fourth and especially the sixth. The seventh I think is a bit underrated. I also liked The Invisible Man, Jaws, and a lot of enjoyably schlocky stuff like The Stuff and Killer Klowns.

Basically these:

• Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives
• Jaws
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

And if they count:

• Gremlins
• Shaun of the Dead

But that's only the short version of things. --Matthew (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Of the Nightmare films for me, it would be Part 1, 3, Dead, and New Nightmare. Friday 8 is enjoyable for me, as much as it's a bad Friday movie, it's so bad it's fun for me. But, I like Kane Hodder as Jason. Killer Klowns is one of my favorite B-movies of all time. I also like Shaun of the Dead (I like all the Simon Pegg/Edgar Wright movies).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you've seen this, but I thought you might enjoy it: Jason Voorhees on talk show. Also, what do you think of An American Werewolf in London and what's your favourite of the Cornetto trilogy? Mine's Hot Fuzz. --Matthew (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that a few years ago sifting through YouTube. As far as the Cornetto Trilogy, I don't know that I have a favorate because they're all so distinct in their style. I love Shaun because it's straight British humor, and I know all the references. I think that Hot Fuzz is more American humor (at least once he leaves London), which is great stuff, but so different. I haven't had a chance to watch World's End yet, but I'm sure I'll enjoy it. I love John Landis films as well, and American Werewolf is one of my favorite werewolf films. I love the music in it. That one, the original Howling, and Dog Soldiers are some of my top favorites.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wanna watch The World's End or anything else for that matter really, you can just use Putlocker. It's basically every movie for free and it doesn't give you that garbage other sites do where you have to take a survey, make an account, download some virus, etc. It's how I've been watching all the Friday movies. --Matthew (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. I'll probably end up buying it here soon. Let me know what you think of the Friday remake when you get to it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering this is basically just two people talking about movie opinions, what other kinds of genres do you like besides horror? And what's your favourite non-horror movie? (I just finished Jason Takes Manhattan today by the way) --Matthew (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I pretty much like all genres. I have over 1200 movies, so you eventually get all genres. I really like old Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns (like, The Good, the bad, and the ugly or The Outlaw Josey Wales) and good kung-fu movies (like, Snake in Eagle's Shadow or Enter the Dragon). I like sci-fi movies, and I'm a big fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars. What about yourself?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I did like the Dollars trilogy of spaghetti westerns. But I'd say my favourite genres would be action/adventure, comedy, horror, monster, and sci-fi. It's all on my user page if you want to take a look, what movies I like, what music I like, etc. It even has a list of every movie I've ever seen. --Matthew (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for creating 3D Silicon Fish, MatthewHoobin!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

	Thanks
	Thank for the Dalmatians 3 editing. You made it more professional. I created the article so others can read about the game. Thanks again for standing up for the page. -Matrin Matrin44 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware that just adding screenshots from movies (like you did at Fight Club and Back to the Future) is not acceptable under WP:NFC. First, the shots you are uploading are far too high resolution. Second, we require a strong rationale for these images, which nearly always mean that it is a scene that has been critically discussed in the sources, and can't be easily described by text alone. That justification is not there for these shots. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow SPG fan, I wanted to personally thank you for making the UBX for Steam Powered Giraffe, I enjoy it and only hope more fans see it. Golde62 (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Should werewolf movies be listed in the "canines" section of the List of natural horror films? --68.196.40.216 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I feel like werewolves are more supernatural than natural, but I suggest you ask again on the list's talk page to see what other editors think. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give The 7 Habits Of Highly Effective Teens a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I do know how to move an article; the issue is that the article name that it should be moved to is already in existence, as a redirect page. Is there a way that the redirect page and the article can be switched? For the purpose of correct grammatical format, it should be done. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 22:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Dan Avidan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan Avidan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Avidan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

MatthewHoobin, if your only concern about List of giant-monster films is that the lead is too long, there is a specific template for that: Template:Lead too long. But I'm not sure why you think it is too long. It has the standard four paragraphs; and although the list is rather short, that is the result of a fight over sources in which editors kept removing and restoring the entire list. As a compromise, I started with a greatly reduced list and made sure the sources were strong. However, if you look at one of the old versions, you'll see that the list is potentially much longer. In the meantime, I think it would be more productive to add to the list than to shorten the lead. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I was writing a lengthy reply to this in my defense, but upon further review I agree that I made an incorrect choice. I felt that that the lead section shouldn't detail the history of the list's content, but then I took a look at articles like List of James Bond films and List of Doctor Who serials (because these are two examples that appear when typing "List of" in the search box) and I realised that you're right. I'm sorry. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 18:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite alright! Can you remove it, then? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done! -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 00:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the article to the WP:STATUSQUO and started a discussion at a Talk:Rocky#Genre. You are encourage to follow WP:BRD and participate in the discussion and to obtain a consensus for your alterations before restoring them again. If you continue edit-warring I may have to seek disciplinary action against you,but I would rather settle this amicably. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Naturally. Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MatthewHoobin. James Nguyen, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed you pinged me in your comments about how this isn't GA-worthy right now, but couldn't exactly tell if you were keeping the review on hold or just simply failing it. See WP:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing if you aren't sure what to do. In either case, it helps article participants to leave a notice as to whether you plan on placing an article on hold following a review or plan to fail it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that an article could be placed on hold. In that case, I'll make changes accordingly and add an "on hold" tag when I can. –Matthew - (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Drop in comment from Talk page reader. I'm not sure that putting the article on a long term hold was what Snuggums was trying to point out here. If the article is ready for update assessment in a week or two then the assessment can go forward. However, in this case, the postponement appears to be for months and months (and indefinite) for The Revenant since it is the reigning Oscar winner. It could be in theaters until the end of the year in December when the new 2017 Oscar contenders take over at the theaters. If the current postponement is indefinite and long term then the nom should be removed at this time as suggested by Snuggums, and possibly renominated early next year as needed. Snuggums might clarify if this was what was meant or otherwise. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how there could be any justification for delaying the review any further, much less into next year. The comments by Snuggums were made on an earlier GA review back in April when the movie hadn't been in full world-wide release. This no longer applies—in the unlikely event that it does, Snuggums is welcome to make a case for why on the review page. MatthewHoobin, it's time to resume the review. If you're no longer interested—and I hope you are—please let me know and I'll put it back in the nominations pool for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi MatthewHoobin. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Matthew,

I see that after I reverted your cut-and-paste move at MovieStop, you did it again, and added an infobox.

After the article gets properly moved, you'll need the following text back:

{{Infobox company
| name     = GameStop
| logo     = MovieStop logo.png
| type     = [[Public company|Public]]
| foundation       = 2004
| locations        = 44 <small>(2014)</small><ref name=draw />
| industry         = [[Retail]]
| parent           = [[GameStop]]
}}

Cheers, --Slashme (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

On 27 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Nguyen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that James Nguyen directed Birdemic: Shock and Terror, considered one of the worst films of all time, and financed its $10,000 budget with his own money? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Nguyen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James Nguyen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 01:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

{{Rename media}} templates to request a file be renamed go on the file page itself (per Template:Rename media usage section), as opposed to the talk page of the file, where you have been placing them. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll make changes accordingly. –Matthew - (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for using my Ninja Sex Party column for the article on the NSP song "Unicorn Wizard." PokeHomsar (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_natural_horror_films&diff=prev&oldid=722075371 --67.81.107.101 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone's able to find a policy that excludes lists from having citations, then that list should have citations. Other lists on Wikipedia have citations, and thus, consistency should win over someone simply saying "not needed". –Matthew - (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The administrators agreed to remove it, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=722077551#Is_IMDB_a_reliable_source.3F --67.81.107.101 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's just because the citations were from IMDb, which is generally never considered a reliable source (there's even an essay about it). The page still needs references, just not from IMDb, because IMDB isn't a reliable source. I'm going to transfer this conversation to the article's talk page. –Matthew - (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you created a Michael Phillip Reed page which redirects to the Steam Powered Giraffe page, but he actually spells his middle name with only one "L" so I created a Michael Philip Reed page which also redirects to the SPG page. I didn't want to delete your page without asking, but I do believe that it should be removed because it gives an incorrect spelling of his name. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your cooperation, Warkgnall (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, nice eye. I've tagged the redirect I created for speedy deletion. –Matthew - (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That addition was unnecesarry. We already know that the killer animals are the main antagonists or at least play a major role. You were also taking it too literally in saying movies like Jaws don't count. "Normally harmless animals turned into killers" was just an example. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Jaws is certainly a natural horror film, but the description in the lead does not coincide with Jaws, and that's one of a few problems. Please see the incident's listing on the administrator's noticeboard. –Matthew - (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. A tag has been placed on George Miller (entertainer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Miller (entertainer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Miller (entertainer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ian Carter (entertainer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Carter (entertainer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. bonadea contributions talk 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello MatthewHoobin. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Widr (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello MatthewHoobin,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Magic Cat Academy for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ^en:User:Rtrust _(talk) 03:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Despite the defeat faced at the hands of the now-deleted articles "Ian Carter (entertainer)" and "George Miller (entertainer)", salvaging "Magic Cat Academy" from the abyss of terminated pages is a victory on my part. The contested deletion prevails! Cheers. –Matthew - (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unicorns Have Got to Go, if you look at List of Regular Show episodes, there are approximately 10 episodes that have individual articles. I think few or none are notable either, but I haven't taken the time to confirm my suspicion and do AFD nominations. Not sure if you want to deal with this. MB 05:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a long read, but consensus is now to italicize gaming publications such as IGN and Polygon. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Sorry about the misunderstanding. –Matthew - (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Matthew, I obviously saw the sources as I merged them appropriately into the list article. I'd rather not drag this through an AfD. WP has a very long history of creating unwarranted articles for individual Pokémon, inevitably merged back to their parent lists. All Pokémon have some sort of routine coverage—the Internet thinks they're cute/fat/scary/whatever—and those passing mentions do not count towards the general notability guideline. Please revert your edit as an AfD would be a waste of time in this case. czar 22:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I did take the numerous unwarranted articles into consideration when creating articles for Rowlet, Litten, Popplio, and yes, indeed Mimikyu. Hence, I only created those, as those appear to have the highest amount of coverage on the Internet. Going by the notability guideline, the article for Mimikyu has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Granted, this of course only makes it presumed worthy of its own page. However, I find that Mimikyu is one of the four Pokémon (along with Rowlet, Litten, and Popplio) noteworthy enough to have its own article, judging by online coverage. I understand your perspective, but I nonetheless disagree that Mimikyu's article should become a redirect. –Matthew - (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a waste of time, but as you please. Noting your prior article deletions noted on this talk page, I would think that it would be worth revisiting your understanding of "significant coverage" before creating any more articles. In particular, as I already said, mind that listicles riffing on how individual Pokemon are scary/stupid/etc. is not even coverage at all—the question is whether there is depth sufficient to warrant a summary style split from the existing main article, which is the list. All four articles, based on their current sourcing, are bound to become redirects.  czar 22:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mimikyu is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimikyu until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. czar 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)