Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudkip

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 III Pokémon#Mudkip. Whether to merge content is an editorial decision. Sandstein 20:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mudkip[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)

Fails WP:GNG, the reception section barely exists and what is there is a trivial mention. The only serious mentions of Mudkip in media is related to the meme, but it doesn't seem like the meme is notable enough for an article, either. The meme can be mentioned on the List of Pokemon. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: A supplementary explanation on the notability guideline page makes it clear that notability is not a temporary attribute, and I quote: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. WP:BEFORE on the search engine suggests that the subject is still being discussed on occasion by video game media on a non-trivial basis. Not having a standalone article for the meme on Wikipedia does not mean it is an auto-fail for the subject to have a standalone article as well. Haleth (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The reception is both too little and trivial, aside from the meme. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The meme is part of what makes Mudkip notable. You can't just say the coverage is trivial and then ignore the one thing that it's most well known for. Mlb96 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the meme is the only thing notable about Mudkip, then the article should be about the meme. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree precisely. If the meme is notable, then absolutely make an article about the meme. This is not that article, and moving it to be about the meme would be too much of a change in scope._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's the only thing it's known for. Regardless, as Haleth stated above, it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Mlb96 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of Generation III Pokémon. Being a meme is not enough to establish reception, as has been proven with other Pokémon species and the Team Rocket Trio itself, which does not have enough notability for a stand-alone article. The meme can perfectly be mentioned in Mudkip's section in the list. --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Haleth. If it's being discussed in video game media on a non-trivial basis, then it's objectively notable. Mlb96 (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is purely WP:SOURCESEXIST unless the supposed "non-trivial" sources are posted and vetted. They sure are not in the article now. I would gladly withdraw this AFD immediately if that is proven with evidence._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of generation III Pokémon#Mudkip The only thing real-world significance around Mudkip is the meme. Reception is thin otherwise and other info is all in-universe. The meme is explained in 3 sentences. It doesn't need it's own article. Summarize in the Pokemon list table. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of generation III Pokémon#Mudkip. Not much here to work with, really, very little coverage outside the usual game guides. Still, I'd strongly advise merge over a simple redirect; some content can enrich the target list whose entry is as often not much more than plot summary; merging reception there would be a win-win IMHO. In this case the list has zero valuable or reference content, so merge is highly recommended. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki game guide style content to wikibooks:Pokémon/Pokédex/Mudkip --Mbrickn (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge with List of generation III Pokémon. If the meme is notable, make an article about the meme. The sources I can find via WPVG's reliable source custom search do not address the subject "at length and in detail". — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 20:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with List of generation III Pokémon#Mudkip. In my opinion, the majority of Pokémon aren't notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles. The only exceptions are Pikachu, Eevee, the Gen 1 starters, Mewtwo, and maybe Mew. LifelongLynx (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on the basis of the meme. --Sailor Ceres (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep as no consensus. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the List of Generation III Pokémon. If a single meme is all it has going for it, then it certainly doesn't warrant its own article. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge - per above - The fictional creature itself is not notable outside of it being used as the basis for the meme, and even that "notability" is about two sentences worth of content which can be mentioned in its entry at the List of Generation III Pokémon rather than a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 17 July 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.