Talk:Team Rocket

message: I don't expect this talkpage to become excessively busy, but I decided to move all the old talk page discussion to Talk:Team Rocket/Archive 1 because I completely rewrote and recreated this article. This will hopefully decrease any confusion, as practically none of the old article content is present on the article as I wrote it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: Kung Fu Man and Pokelego999 above say that the article should forego the video game origin of Team Rocket and focus nearly entirely on Team Rocket as it is presented in the anime. Reception is almost entirely focused on the anime characters. I created the article in mostly its current state because I personally believe its more appropriate to put the game Team Rocket and the anime Team Rocket alongside eachother. WP:COATRACK might be a concern, but I believe there's enough connecting tissue here and see it as one broad topic with a full history. Kung Fu Man wrote a version of this article with the proposed scope. I would like to invite more perspectives on this topic. I hope I didn't misrepresent anyone in this summary, please let me know if I made any errors. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like a basic rundown of Team Rocket in the games and anime would be good for the concept section, but by and large, the organizationI don't think is independently notable without Jessie and James. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently I don't believe either version of the article - the broad one OR the Jesse/James/Meowth one - is standalone notable. It should be redirected to List of Pokémon characters#Team Rocket. It's possible there are more sources out there that can prove one or the other is notable, but in its current state it's liable for AfD.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I responded to the returned concern on notability in the section above. It's fair if we want to deal with that issue first of course; that conversation had died out almost a year ago but maybe should be officially decided at some point. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I do believe the subject of the Trio is notable, just based off of what's here and a couple of sources I found while improving Ash Ketchum recently. I can probably do a source deep dive within the next few days to help improve what's here and buff up Reception.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Pokelego's sentiments here. The organization itself doesn't meet notability standards, and the reception given to the trio doesn't extend to it. Team Rocket as an organization is a *known* subject, but not a *notable* subject needing its own article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree broadly, I think "Team Rocket" is a perfectly acceptable metonym for the (notable) concept of "Jessie, James, and Meowth" and I would support including some information about the Team Rocket organization as background to understanding this trio of characters. I'm also confident that a source deep dive would uncover additional sources to support notability, just based on how long-running and iconic these characters are. User:Pokelego999, if you're volunteering to do the dive, I would suggest looking for sources that discuss their place in the history of slapstick comedy (in English sources) and manzai (in Japanese sources). Axem Titanium (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

text: My thoughts mirror Cukie's comment. Sergecross73 msg me 20:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

text: My stance on the focus issue has already been stated, so I won't reiterate it again, but I will say that given the article's focus is primarily on the Trio, it probably should be focused on them rather than the organization that is barely discussed by comparison. It's the equivalent of getting a notable character- in this case, characters- and then renaming the article to focus on the non-notable organization they're apart of instead of them, at least in my book. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

text: I've added a pair of book sources to the article. There's a lot of both books I can't access, and there seems to be more in-depth coverage on the trio than I was able to add inside of them. Either way, given the several book sources + the Yahoo article, I'd say this is a safe keep. There's probably more I could get (I didn't sift through Valnet or the like, probably could worst comes to worst) but all in all I think this should suffice to prove notability.  Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether to refocus this article