Talk:Piplup, Prinplup, and Empoleon

Merge
Per my argument on the creator's talkpage, the sources are not good enough to establish notability. One source is a forum post, and the rest briefly describe them. I do believe that sources might could be found for Piplup, but in the article's current state, it doesn't deserve to stand alone. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Comment: I believe this passes the notability guideline. Besides, the Pokemon articles Steelix, Smoochum, Arceus, Bidoof, Blaziken, Girafarig and Vulpix clearly cite less sources than this one, and so if can stay, why not this one? It's safe to state now that, according to the notability guideline for established Pokemon articles, it does meet the guideline, and thus this page is notable enough to stay. I believe that that it should be more consistent, and not changeable depending on article. Thank you for reading, Androids101 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The status of other articles has little meaning on the status of the article in hand. They are not to be used as a "guideline". Secondly, you are incorrect. Yes, this article cites plenty of sources, but that is because it is three species in one article and is mainly primary sources. Notability is from reliable third party sources, of which there are only 6 of here. All of the articles you cited have AT LEAST 6 reliable third party sources. Plus, like I said on your talkpage, a lot of those article don't deserve to be split either, namely Steelix. We have just not merged them back yet. Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is a pretty blatant violation of WP:NOT (especially WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GAMEGUIDE) and WP:V. Whether or not other articles fail our policies and guidelines has no bearing on this article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support (its Androids101, by the way). Per proposal. Cyan  Gardevoir  06:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)