Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbapedia 3


 * 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 Pokémon. Overall, there is consensus that Bulbapedia is not notable enough for an article. A selective merge has already been performed and there is a rough consensus to redirect/merge to that location anyways. As such, I'll redirect (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bulbapedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability for this website. Almost entirely sourced by the website itself. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the mess earlier which I've now fixed - Technically "3" is incorrect as it should be "3rd nomination" but the prev AFD was in 2005 hence prev being "2" and I'd rather not flaff around with historical stuff like that so figured it was best I name this 3. Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks, I was a little confused when I saw three previous nominations up here, but nothing on the talk page. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :), I assume no one used the closing tool in 2005 so I'd say they probably forgot to add the closes, Meh who knows, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * At first glance, it looks like there are 2-3 valid sources, but one is a book and the others are dead links... ansh 666 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. See WP:OFFLINE.  Konveyor   Belt   02:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not saying if they're good or bad, just that I can't access any of them to assess whether they are actually reliable and not trivial/passing mentions. ansh 666 09:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge into Pokémon (and that could probably be forked, as Pokémon is a quite lengthy article). Pax 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Site gets a fairly large number of Google news mentions, but I haven't reviewed them to decide one way or another on notability yet. Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G4 Delete - this has been sent to AfD and declined at DRV so many times, a new creation really has to overwhelmingly show notability for the word go. There are news hits but after looking at several like this, they seem to just mention Bulbapedia as a source or a brief mention, with not much about the site at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This version of the article is significantly different from the versions that were deleted by VfD (yes, Votes for Deletion) in 2005. Every other version was speedy deleted, so G4 does not apply in this case. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally I'd agree with that, but the DRVs in 2009, 2010, 2011 said "endorse the delete" every time. Still, I'm no grumpy deletionist, if somebody can improve the article and prove me to be completely and utterly wrong, that would be great! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember that DRV isn't AfD - it's for contesting the procedure of a close, not the outcome of a close. Every time, nobody found anything wrong with the process to overturn it, nor did anyone provide any new reliable sources (though one guy tried really really hard, apparently). Either way, DRV refers back to the old article which was deleted (yes, in 2005, a lot has changed since then), so is irrelevant here. ansh 666 19:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm happy to downgrade to a straight "delete" ... but I can't go any further than that. I've dug into book sources and the best I can muster is things like this which is a one-sentence mention in a self-published source. That's just not enough to save the article, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Pokémon, where a sentence or two should be added on the topic. (I'll look into that.) It's mentioned in passing in several sources as a definitive reference for the series, but it doesn't have any kind of dedicated coverage so as to warrant its own article. Redirects are cheap and there's a worthwhile redirect target. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ⨹   23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A merge to Pokémon (Section was renamed) seems to be a good solution. I would imagine one short paragraph could be reliably sourced and not be undue weight. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , for what it's worth, I've already added any source I thought was worth merging (comes to about a sentence rather than a paragraph). czar ⨹   16:33, 11 March 2015 (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.