Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur evolutionary line

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 boldly merged into Bulbasaur. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur evolutionary line

Entirely redundant to List of Pokémon (1–20) and Bulbasaur. Content mostly copied without attribution from Bulbasaur. I'm not seeing any kind of consensus for this change in coverage style, and the previous method (of lists, with articles for the more notable Pokémon) seems far more logical. J Milburn (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long discussion about this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon (starting at "User:Permethius/Sandbox3"). TheLeft orium 14:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shit, didn't realise that was there. Nonetheless, this article has serious attribution issues, and remains redundant. J Milburn (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Bulbasaur article is now a redirect to this article, so an "un-merger" discussion is probably better than an AfD. TheLeft orium 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I've undone that. I feel this article should be deleted, covering Bulbasaur seems much more logical than covering Bulbasaur, Ivysaur and Venusaur. I guess a section in article could deal with the other two, but they obviously are not nearly as significant as the original. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge - I completely agree with J Milburn. Both Ivysaur and Venusaur fail WP:NOTABILITY. TheLeft orium 14:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my vote to merge because I think it would be a good idea to include the basic information about Ivysaur and Venusaur in an "Evolution" section in the Bulbasaur article.TheLeft orium 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read Zarrep's comments, lists dont always have the same references. This is name Bulbasaur evolutionary line because it is center around Bulba but has info on the other, with references. Come on J, bring this up at WT:PCP, more supporters than opposers, as Left is against anything I do anymore.--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^{Hit Me!}_{Sign Here!} 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've brought this up here because I feel it should be deleted, and accusations of bad faith are not going to get you very far. Theleftorium is an excellent user for whom I (and many others) have a lot of respect. J Milburn (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bulbasaur. I agree with Theleftorium that there is probally not enough notability to cover each different character with its own article. With the new WP:Fiction proposal underway seperate article's might get removed if the proposal is accepted as policy. Similary covering three different subjects with the same weight in an article is uncommon, and probally not a good idea; Since bulbasaur is clearly the most notable of the trio, why not merge the different evolution forms into that article? the different forms are clearly important on the subject Bulbasaur, even if they are not notable enough to warrant an individual (or even group) article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is basically Bulbasaur with some info on the other pokemon of his evo line. If Ivysaur was the most notable, it would be Ivysaur Evo line,--Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ ^{Hit Me!}_{Sign Here!} 15:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Merge into Bulbasaur. This article was never intended to co-exist with a Bulbasaur article; it was meant to replace it as a more thorough article on the subject. Per Excirial's comment, I think that Ivysaur and Venusaur are relevant if you're talking about Bulbasaur. I see this as increasingly true with Ivysaur's inclusion in SSB:B. Extraneaous information should be trimmed when merging, but I think it is a disservice to the topic of Bulbasaur to ignore its evolutionary path. The actual name of the article is a minor details compared to what is expected to be included (or excluded) from the article. I understand if people have Pokéfear, but this is a good faith attempt to expand coverage on a Pokémon previously deemed notable (if only by being #001). —Ost (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to Bulbasaur seems like the best option here; this may also provide a way to have slightly larger segmented on the evolved forms that can be used for redirect targets while providing a comprehensive overview. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bulbasaur per above. Furthermore, there seems to be little info directly relating to the evolutionary line, and more on just the individual Pokémon. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ivysaur and Venusaur aren't notable enough to warrant significant coverage in their own article, and as stated all over the place, there's nothing particularly significant about the evolutionary line itself. Bulbasaur is what people will be searching for, and a little info on the later forms is warranted as part of that discussion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a lot of the info in the article proposed for deletion fails notability tests, and should be done away with. The remaining skeleton should be merged. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The skeleton came from Bulbasaur anyway. If you think any of it should be kept, go for it, slip it in. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bulbasaur per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Merge per above. - 2 ... says you, says me 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article was non-admin closed. I have reverted that closure because the closer had participated in the debate. It was a procedural reversion, and I would not object to an uninvolved party closing this per WP:SNOW.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:49, 10 June 2009 (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.