Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lake trio


 * 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   delete.  Jamie ☆ S93  15:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lake trio

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete Fails WP:N, among others. Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeathER 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added sources, so it no longer fails WP:V or WP:RS. It doesn't violate WP:N because the Pokémon video game franchise is indisputably notable, and therefore all major parts of the franchise are notable. --Aruseusu (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pokemon may have notability, but not everything in it does. Such as this article. Þέŗṃέłḥìμŝ LifeDeathER 15:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the "Lake trio" is not a major part of the franchise.  The Le ft orium  15:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Pokémon: The Movie 2000 makes numerous references to the three birds as a set. One example includes: "Moltres, Zapdos, and Articuno...together they are the three keys...." Also, the "Articuno, Moltres, and Zapdos" jumbo card is, as far as I know, the only Pokémon card shared by multiple species. By the way, I'm still against this Lake trio article (still doesn't establish WP:N), but I just wanted to clarify that the birds are, in fact, treated as a set in official material. Cheers. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 18:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Legendary Pokémon. Delete. Non-notable, even within the franchise. a little   insignificant  17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The article has no context and details a non-notable point within the Pokemon franchise. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Entirely in-universe with no real-world information (and none likely to exist.)  Artichoker [ talk  ] 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; This kind of stuff is for Bulbapedia, and there's already an article there. Well written articles on pokémon should go on Bulbapedia, not here. Looneyman (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pokemon fans have a tendency to make up "duos" and "trios". This is one of those things, which are generally made up at school one day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf are specifically stated by the games to be a trio. Azelf's Pokédex entry in Pearl states that they are a trio, and the painting in the cave in Celestic Town and the scene in DP at the Spear Pillar establish that Uxie, Mesprit, and Azelf are a trio. Therefore, since the games themselves say that they are a trio, it isn't simply something made up one day. --Aruseusu (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we should have articles on the other trios as well. --Aruseusu (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They would have the exact same problems with notability, verifiability, and sourcing as this one does. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if articles on the other trio's were created, thesame thing would happen to them. They just aren't notible enough for Wikipedia. Looneyman (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't suggesting we make an article for other legendary trios, just pointing out an inaccurate statement. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, we were just responding to Aruseusu's statement that they should be made. MelicansMatkin (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Have to agree that not everything in Pokemon is notable. Turbo900 (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody's made any posts here for a couple of days, I assume that a consensus has been reached. Looks like delete won by a large majority. Looneyman (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems so. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 04:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.