Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudkip

Mudkip

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, the reception section barely exists and what is there is a trivial mention. The only serious mentions of Mudkip in media is related to the meme, but it doesn't seem like the meme is notable enough for an article, either. The meme can be mentioned on the List of Pokemon. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: A supplementary explanation on the notability guideline page makes it clear that notability is not a temporary attribute, and I quote: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. WP:BEFORE on the search engine suggests that the subject is still being discussed on occasion by video game media on a non-trivial basis. Not having a standalone article for the meme on Wikipedia does not mean it is an auto-fail for the subject to have a standalone article as well. Haleth (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The reception is both too little and trivial, aside from the meme. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The meme is part of what makes Mudkip notable. You can't just say the coverage is trivial and then ignore the one thing that it's most well known for. Mlb96 (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the meme is the only thing notable about Mudkip, then the article should be about the meme. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree precisely. If the meme is notable, then absolutely make an article about the meme. This is not that article, and moving it to be about the meme would be too much of a change in scope._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's the only thing it's known for. Regardless, as Haleth stated above, it has significant coverage in reliable sources. Mlb96 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]