Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blaziken


 * 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 merge to List of generation III Pokémon. Daniel (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Blaziken

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of significant coverage we would expect for Pokemon species. The largest chunk of this article, "Appearances", is just listing off the character's appearances. Concept is weakly sourced, Reception is dry. There's no substance here. Key points can be summed up in the species list. TarkusAB talk / contrib 17:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of generation III Pokémon. Per WP:BEFORE, the subject lacks significant coverage as a fictional character or element, and not in relation to other Pokemon species, period. And if the nominator is suggesting that there is worthwhile material which simply can be better summarized in a list article, then this should never have been sent to AfD and should have been resolved by a merge proposal instead. Haleth (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of generation III Pokémon per Haleth, no WP:SIGCOV. Link20XX (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge as a compromise. No WP:SIGCOV but there is a well-organized merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into the corresponding list of Pokémon. As I have been saying, most of these characters indeed include reliable secondary sources, but the sources do not cover the subjects in a deep way; the Reception section in this case is just a collection of random comments from these sources and other game guides, which are not enough to establish Notability. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  00:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  TarkusAB talk / contrib 02:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to said list, stand-alone notability is unclear. Ha, for a moment I thought this is about Blaviken... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per others, non-notable Pokemon, article is fancrufty.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.