Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charmander

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 I Pokémon. Daniel (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charmander[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)

I realize this is going to ruffle some people, but hear me out: the sources that are there are, with the exception of one, are all extremely minor, many less than a few words in passing. Heck there's one in there about a Pokemon toy that's trying to claim it's about Charmander when the toy itself is minor in the story it's about. That's the sort of WP:REFBOMB-ing we're dealing with. There's just no notability, even without considering Charizard by comparison, who still fills in the role of the original trio's ensemble cast.

WP:BEFORE also didn't turn up anything of value. The book "Japanese Influence on American Children's Television" offers a recap of Charmander to Charizard's role in the anime, but that can be worked into Charizard proper for the same results, especially the design critique of it going from cute to fearsome. It's not enough to prop up the article alongside the Polygon source when all the bad sourcing is removed. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that Charmander doesn't pass GNG - besides the Polygon article, there are some scattered mentions of the Charmander episode early on in the Pokemon anime in books, but they are all very short. I couldn't find slam-dunk evidence either in the page or in my searches. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just the information about his card alone would probably be good enough for an article. KatoKungLee (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be confusing Charmander with Charizard.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm. The coverage is mostly trivial mentions, which aren't enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. There are good lists for this, as WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A bit surprised that Charmander doesn't have much coverage due to it being iconic, thou does not pass notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (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.