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 redirect to List of generation I Pokémon. Although the numbers are close (2:1), the arguments against keeping are stronger: the "keep" opinions do not substantively address or rebut the other side's arguments that there is not substantial coverage in reliable sources. I have to discount the IP comment because the IP was blocked as an open proxy. Sandstein 07:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haunter[edit]

Haunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable Pokemon with no real-world notability. Propose redirecting to List of generation I Pokémon. Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Per nom - coverage is purely trivial in nature. The film, which seems notable, should be moved to primary and the former article/redirect moved to Haunter (Pokémon) instead._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per ZXCVBNM's comment Timur9008 (talk) 05:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the nominator wants to have this article merged or redirected with consensus to List of generation I Pokémon instead of actually having it deleted, a merge proposal should have been made instead. No argument on whether it fails WP:SIGCOV and thus WP:GNG was actually advanced, and no analysis or review of extent coverage is provided, only an opinion of whether the subject should be notable. Haleth (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is sourced by reliable sources that indicate notability. The nom's comments that this subject has "no real-world notability" seems to be based upon subjective opinion, not policy; the sources and coverage in secondary sources establishes notability per WP:N and WP:RS. I also agree with the above comment that if a merge/redirect is being requested by the nom, that should be done via a merge proposal rather than AFD. — Hunter Kahn 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point me to some RS that indicate notability? I do not see that any of the references in the article show SIGCOV about this Pokemon, besides being an entry in the "list of best Pokemon" or a "list of ghost Pokemon", or game notes, etc. Most of the coverage is just trivial or mentions in list articles. Natg 19 (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yet another IDONTLIKEIT. Why area large number of users confused about notability? Dagana4 (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, per Haleth's reasons. The sources that has been presented probably already meets WP:GNG, its just people who scrutinized Pokemon articles like this too much. 189.223.178.58 (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon. If you want to know why the nominator didn't make this a "merge" proposal, the above "keep" comments are why. I don't see a single source in this article that can be construed as significant coverage. The character is either mentioned as a routine Pokemon or in trivial detail from puff press. A redirect would suffice. Feel free to merge anything else you deem appropriate. czar 02:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of generation I Pokémon Just not seeing the needed detailed coverage here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The sources are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Trivial mentions and Top X lists are not significant coverage. TTN (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm going to go against the grain here, but I feel that even with small mentions regardless if they're lists or not if there's enough people giving reactions especially given how large Pokemon's cast is, that shows a sign of notability. The article does need improvement and better resources and statements to emphasize notability, but I disagree that it fails WP:N outright.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect if Haunter's not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, it should be redirected to List of generation I Pokémon. 🎧⋆JennilyW♡🎶 (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of generation I Pokémon. As I said before, few Pokemons meet GNG - most have just passing mentions in various lists, and information on gameplay in various games. No source cited is reliable and contains a wP:SIGCOV-meeting discussion of this, we get at most a sentence or two here and there, and the sources are low-quality click-baits, the best of which is "Pokemon: 10 Things You Never Knew About Haunter". I am increasingly despairing about the proliferation of such soft news in this topic area, which are IMHO no more reliable than blogs - I very much doubt such articles receive any editorial oversight, they are mass-produced and instantly forgettable, and little better than WP:DAILYMAIL. I think merging such content into a list is a valid compromise, least we get swamped by a flood of articles on minor video game or other fictional entities which contain no scholarly or criticial analysis, just plot summary, gaming 'how-to', trivia, and few sentences or the de-facto blogger's own opinion about the character. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 4 September 2021 (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.