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 List of generation IV Pokémon#Drifloon. Daniel (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drifloon[edit]

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

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

Considering the fact that there are over 800 Pokemon species (!!!), there's a reason we set the bar high to give one a dedicated article. When reading this, I ask myself "What makes Drifloon so much more important than the other 800+ Pokemon that it needs its own article?" Let's take a look:

• Characteristics: This reads like a Pokedex entry. I get that it's sourced to an RS, but it's ultimately all fictional information pulled from the games anyways. This can be done for any Pokemon character.
• Appearances: Just a list of appearances in games and the anime. Again, this could be done for any Pokemon character.
• Reception: Dry surface level commentary that is fluffed up to seem like significant coverage, but it does not arrive at any meaningful conclusions. This section is full of excessive quotes of journalists finding creative ways to describe how creepy Drifloon is over and over. Most of the sources are "top 10 scary Pokemon"-like lists and not specific to Drifloon. There have been so many articles written about Pokemon over the years, that you could generate the same level of commentary for most species.

So answering my original question above, I came to the conclusion that no, there is nothing significant about this Pokemon such that it needs its own article. I'm seeing a lack of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). TarkusAB^talk/contrib 14:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon after a cursory look at available sourcing per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, as there appears to be insufficient dedicated coverage about the character. However, the nomination appears to be malformed and not properly argued on WP:GNG grounds, and it is primarily concerned with article content, an editorial concern, as opposed to a proper discernment on whether suitable sources exist. Highlighting that there are 800+ other species and demanding that a higher bar should be set is irrelevant and simply an other stuff exists or WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. So what? Why should articles about Pokemon species be scrutinized any differently from all other articles about fictional characters or elements, when they are all covered by WP:GNG and there is no special WP:SNG specifically dedicated to Pokemon articles which lay down rules on what qualities a particular Pokemon species must possess before they are entitled to a standalone article? And no, the so-called Pokemon test does not count and it was never a vetted and accepted guideline to begin with. The only consideration for editors to consider would be, either the subject have WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources or they don't, according to their own interpretation. Haleth (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of generation IV Pokémon#Drifloon per Haleth, all of the sources except this one are all listicles or about something else entirely and give it just a passing mention. Link20XX (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Link20XX. The sources are mostly WP:PASSINGMENTIONs and not enough to represent WP:SIGCOV for this topic. A merge is a decent compromise considering the existence of a larger list. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the corresponding list. The Appearances section proves that even within the Pokémon franchise this character is not relevant, and the Reception section is written in such a fashion that gives an initial impression of Notability, but it is just a collection of mentions from reliable sources but that do not deeply cover the subject. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Per others, the article is largely fancruft on a minor Pokemon._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:17, 22 July 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.