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 keep. Sandstein 14:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam (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 group of Pokemon with no SIGCOV. However, it seems that there was a few "lawsuits" or controversial elements, so unsure if those contribute to notability.

I would suggest deletion or redirecting to List of generation I Pokémon, as it is similar to other Pokemon AfDs (here here here). Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would say the lawsuits and controversy over racist imagery in that section certainly contribute to notability. While there is some WP:REFBOMBing, overall, I think their notability is shown. Link20XX (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources in the controversy section seem to be enough to pass GNG on their own. Add in the other reception sources and I would say there is enough to keep the article. Certainly more coverage than the other Pokémon articles up for AFD now. Rhino131 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pokémon#Criticism and controversy section per PRESERVE. Most of the article is trivial, except the cited content of the controversy section. Not a stand-slone quality article. GenQuest ^"scribble" 21:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Your argument would suggest that the article should be trimmed down to remove fancruft, not be deleted entirely. If the topic is notable and there is enough material for a standalone article, then why delete it? Mlb96 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @GenQuest: to clarify, so are you suggesting to delete / redirect the main content, but copy the "Controversy" section to Pokémon#Criticism and controversy? Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The article's content and referencing regarding the controversy seems notable. The article's content regarding the subject matter is non-notable, trivial, and trivia that should be deleted and redirected to a line-item in the list article. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The assertion that this topic has no significant coverage is incorrect. I don't believe that any potential issues with the article is insurmountable that can't be fixed with judicious editing, and if the content of the article is proven to pass notability guidelines, there is no need for a deletion discussion. Haleth (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There are certainly justifiable reasons for reassessing the article's GA status due to concerns about quality of prose and sourcing, but I believe the title and sccope of its contents should be kept as is. Haleth (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Pokemon seems notable, although some parts are really reaching. Stuff like "IGN called Abra "unimpressive", but "worth raising" because it evolves into the "more powerful" Kadabra." is just restating the obvious for literally every Pokemon. It may be worth refocusing the article only on Kadabra, since that was the only one involved in the controversy._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zxcvbnm, I am really not convinced the controversy warrants anything but a merge (at best). We have three trivial incidents (one from a self-published book). Granted, they got mentioned in books, but they still seem very trivial. It's not enduring coverage of this character, IMHO. If several scholars would pick this up, particularly the religious controversy... but I cannot find this incident discussed outside this one book. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• GA Reassess and then make Kadabra (Pokémon) a stand alone article: All of the good sources revolve around Kadabra anyway, The only problem left would be how to preserve the history of this article? (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The history can be preserved by moving the article to Kadabra (the disambiguation is unnecessary; it's a WP:TWODABS situation) and then pruning the mentions of the other evolutions from the article. I also absolutely think it needs to be reassessed, doesn't nearly meet the current standards of GA, IMO._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I second this. The GA review was over a decade ago, and I doubt the article still meets the standard in its current state. I would also not be opposed to moving this article to Kadabra, since that appears to be the only one of the three Pokémon in the article that has actual coverage. Link20XX (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per above (and maybe rename it to Kadabra?).🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above comments. I agree that a discussion about remaking this into a Kadabra (Pokémon) article is worthwhile (but obviously separate from this AFD discussion). There does seem to be coverage on this, particularly Kadabra. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but reassess the GA and change to be only about Kadabra. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To expand on my comment, there appears to enough coverage, especially that generated from the controversy, to meet WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Closer should remember WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:KEEPER (to avoid a deletion review...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge to Pokémon#Criticism and controversy The controversies are very minor and there is no evidence of major coverage (also one of the two books cited is self-published), so I find GenQuest's merge argument sufficient. The entire "Critical reception" is the usual low-quality collection of passing mentions, generally from articles that are not about those characters, but just mention them in passing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough with the deletion of all Pokémons. This article is significant. The coverage is significant. Significant coverage of lawsuits, religious criticism. They have also been critiqued. Pikavoom (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons above, but rename the article into Kadabra. 49.149.124.152 (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as-is The controversy makes this Pokemon non-ROTM and thus notable as others as said. I disagree with the idea to remove Abra and Alakazam, as they are on the same evolutionary line having them in this article would be closer topically than in the generic Pokemon list. Jumpytoo Talk 20:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Abra and Alakazam are simply non-notable Pokemon. For the same reason, Lucario is not "Riolu and Lucario". It would not benefit the informativeness of the article from adding them._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:43, 24 June 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.