Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbid Peach

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 merge‎ to Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. There seems to be a clear consensus for merging this article into its parent video game. Relevant material (which is not present in the parent video game) should be added in the article as part of the marketing of the video game. (non-admin closure) Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbid Peach

[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)

this character is not notable for an article Aomaf (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's...not really much of a reasoning at all? What makes you feel it isn't notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just is random character for make an article about Aomaf (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A character being random is not a reason for deletion. A character is notable if they pass the general notability guidelines. This applies to anything, actually. λ NegativeMP1 21:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am not saying the character is notable. I have no opinion. I'm just pointing out that this is not a valid deletion argument backed up by what is normally expected from these discussions (citing policy, source analysis, etc.). λ NegativeMP1 21:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Insufficient justification for an AfD, but on looking at the sources it seems most of them only discuss the character briefly, in one short paragraph or less, so not exactly WP:SIGCOV. The last reference (Ref. 25) might be the most in-depth, but it's also an opinion piece. Many of the sources focus on a dance video involving the character, not the character herself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rabbids#Characters as a WP:ATD, they do seem to be notable enough for a series page, but this is getting into an unnecessary degree of specificity. This character does not have the significant coverage to be standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge as creator. I do believe that it hits WP:THREE (Gita Jackson, Laura Kate Dale, and the Edge Spain piece), but I am also not a fan of using THREE for characters unless the significant coverage is especially significant, or if there's a ton of smaller pieces that demonstrate the character receives a mass of discussion that amounts to substantive commentary. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle, where most of the information on Rabbid Peach is already contained in development and reception. Some more bits on the reception of the Instagram account can be merged here, as well as anything else deemed necessary. The significant subject overlap means this subject fails Wikipedia:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. Has practically no relevance outside of that game and its sequel, and any information relating to the social media account can be mentioned as being part of the marketing for the game. Computerfan0 (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle. Minuscule notability as a character. Go D. Usopp (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle: Per the above. Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2025 (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.