Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pikachu

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 Speedy keep. There's no way in hell that Pikachu, the clearly notable series mascot, is going to get deleted. Ditto, in descending order of certainty, Mewtwo, Jigglypuff, Mew, and Bulbasaur. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pikachu[edit]

These five seperate articles on Pokemon are redundant because condensed lists of Pokemon already exist and the information can be found there. ÆAUSSIEevilÆ 23:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are also Pokemon with their own unneeded pages:

Speedy keep - I echo Belasted here. Have you read the list entry for Pikachu? It is just a few sentences of in-universe information. The main article is a GA and contains a lot of real-world information and verifiable sources. If you nominate the other articles, I will echo my response there (except for Jigglypuff). Artichoker^[talk] 23:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Pikachu, neutral to weak keep for the rest. The last thing we want is an article on each individual type of Pokemon but Pikachu is the main one. It is a key character in the TV Series (appearing in every episode, as far as I know) and has been used extensively for merchandising. It is easily notable and deserves coverage extensive enough to justify its own article. I don't feel quite so strongly about the others but they are referenced articles that in no way scream "delete me" to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of them. I think the reasoning has been explained adequately. Belasted (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all of them per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All reliably sourced and reasonably cruftless. Tezkag72^{私にどなる}_{私のはかい} 00:21, 1 March 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.