Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan

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 Pokémon (102–151). There is consensus that the subject of the current article can't stand alone and is better merged with the broader list. Several editors voting for deletion are also making arguments that support the idea of a merge. (non-admin closure) --Lord Roem (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete due to lack of encyclopaedic notability. What makes Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan so special compared with the multitude of minor videogame characters that have received the occasional review on IGN and Games Radar? Cavisson (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see how Pokémon characters could be notable enough to have their own articles, apart from Pikachu and a few others. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 08:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that quite a few more than Pikachu and a handful of others have notability where it counts. Quite a few that do have articles do not have that as well, though. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did mention that a few others other than Pikachu are also notable, or meet the requirements to at least stay as separate articles, but I don't understand how Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan are notable enough to have their own article. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 09:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering that I hold the same opinion, duly noted. :v I'm just saying that it's more than just a few, is all. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 09:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - @ihaveamac - That is kind of the wrong attitude to have. Any Pokemon can have an article if it had the coverage. Although you say a few others meet it, it is still a bad argument. In fact, you don't even have an argument. All you have is an opinionated !vote.(Sorry for the attitude, I just get annoyed when these types of comments are made) _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not a substantial amount of important content to sustain its own article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 08:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~List of Pokemon~~List of Pokémon (102–151). Filled with fancruft with no sources offering significant coverage. In 1999 a 13-year-old boy was stabbed in the leg over a Hitmonlee card: "He asked me to look at these new cards and one of them dropped on the ground," John said. "He didn't see it and thought I took it. He pulled out a knife that was in his pocket ... and he stabbed me."

--Odie5533 (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whut? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only thing I found on LexisNexis that really related to Hitmonlee. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Pokémon (102–151). Definitely not one of our strongest articles. This was before Hippie and I realized that it isn't the quantity of the coverage that matters, but the quality of it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 04:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that could WP:verify notability. I believe there might be a long-standing compromise in the area of pokemon to merge these types of articles into a broader list, which I'd be okay with instead of deletion. If someone wants to revisit that compromise, better off talking about those lists, instead of trying to delete individual segments. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Pokémon (102–151). The content is not important enough to be its own article. Almost all the references are primary sources. --Jucchan 21:30, 25 November 2012 (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.