Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gengar

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 redirect to List of generation I Pokémon. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gengar[edit]

[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 Pokemon with no real-world notability. I redirected this to List of generation I Pokémon, as it is similar to other Pokemon AfDs, but a user objected to my redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. There are some passing mentions, usually of weak reliability (and worse), but no WP:SIGCOV. I will note that the target list has a note column which can absorb whatever elements of the current reception anyone thinks are notable and reliable. We could add something from [1] but it's a pre-print so I am not sure it meets WP:MEDRS yet? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced article about one of the most well-known monsters in the franchise. Out of the few Pokemon which are notable enough to have standalone articles, Gengar is definitely one of them. Mlb96 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per valid reason. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The reception section is largely based on snippets from unrelated articles and listicles. Nothing strikes me as demonstrating its notability. The article is largely Bulbapedia caliber._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Non notable as a standalone subject Dexxtrall (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all the sources in the article are really listicles and/or don't give the necessary depth of coverage. As for the Keep !votes above, the first is simply WP:ITSNOTABLE and the IP did provide several sources, though a lot of them also have issues with depth of coverage. Link20XX (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Haunter and Gastly to create Gastly, Haunter, and Gengar - Honestly, I do not see why this was not done sooner. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that those others don't seem notable either, merging them will not somehow make it notable. I instead suggest that someone nominate those for deletion as well._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon as a useful search term. Refbombed article does not have sources with significant coverage, just a collection of passing mentions. czar 21:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon as I do not see enough evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. This is a viable search term and I believe there is limited coverage about this so I think a redirect would be better than an outright deletion. It's a shame though as it is one of my favorite Pokemon. Aoba47 (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, though without prejudice against recreating if enough can be done to improve it. It's not the weakest of Pokémon articles. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, based on the extent of the sourcing, and without doing a WP:BEFORE, I am not convinced that this article strictly fails WP:GNG as alleged by the nominator and other editors. In any event, this should have been the subject of a merge discussion as opposed to a deletion discussion since a few editors have proposed that a large swath of the content may in fact be salvageable. Haleth (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if this AFD goes for delete, can we please keep File:Beta-gengar-nidorino.jpg and move it to Pokémon_Red_and_Blue#Development? (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fine to me. Link20XX (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2021 (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.