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 III Pokémon#Rayquaza. ✗plicit 12:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rayquaza[edit]

[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)

What makes those Pokemon notable? There is a reception section here, but it is primarily the stretched version of stff like "it was ranked 11th in Complex's The "25 Most Kickass Dragons in Video Games" list", and bad style claims like "with reviewers claiming" (when the source is a single review). Almost all coverage is a sentnece or two in passing (so WP:SIGCOV fail). Only three indepdent sources focus on this pokemon (naming him in their title): one is a YouTube video by a fan, this one from IGN looks like a game-guide, and the last one [1] is a short recap of a press release for the upcoming game. This Pokemon failed to captivate the fans (didn't win any fan awards, there is little merch), and is obviously not known outside fandom (no reception in mainstream media, no scholarly analyses, etc).

BEFORE doesn't show anything reliable that's not a mention in passing, no WP:SIGCOV outside few more game guides 'how to get them/how to play with them' (ex. [2]). The best solution with WP:PRESERVE in mind would be to redirect this to List of generation III Pokémon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete / Draft: This page is not justified, while this pokemon did serve as a main character for a few games I believe it should be limited to those pages and not have its own independent page. However, this is a lot of information here and I think it could stay (with significant cleanup). If the original author is still around, it could be drafted back to them. TheLawGiverOfDFT (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of generation III Pokémon per nom. Link20XX (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of generation III Pokémon per nom, mostly plotcruft with no redeeming aspects in terms of notability. Fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per reason above. 180.194.151.145 (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nominator and the above comments. I am somewhat surprised that there was not more coverage on this one since it was a mascot for one of the games (Emerald) and has seemingly appeared in other iterations of the games, but I guess it just never attracted attention on its own right and did not really click with fans. Aoba47 (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no opinion on the deletion, I just wanted to say that I find remarks about "not clicking with fans" to be judgmental and borderline offensive. Consider your words a bit more carefully. Carry on with the process, I don't want to disrupt anything. 2001:8003:B061:F600:B4CE:B8E4:240C:C697 (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how that is judgmental or offensive. That seems like a very big reach to me and before you make accusations against people, you should assume good faith. The (apparent) fan response to this Pokémon was brought up in the nominator's rationale and my comment was in agreement with their assessment. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoba47, Indeed. I could only clarify that I meant that it "failed to captivate most fans", compared to the 'famous' Pokemons like Pikachiu. No offense meant to the few fans it has. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the response! I actually really like this Pokémon, specifically its Meso-American design, but it just did not attract significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 16 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.