Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meltan and Melmetal


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Meltan and Melmetal

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This reads like an article more fit for Bulbapedia than Wikipedia. Fictional element that fails WP:GNG due to its lack of real world notability in secondary sources. (Interviews are primary sources, they don't count towards an article's notability). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - even assuming that the articles related to the event-caused coverage (release, trailers etc.) doesn't count, see (a review),  (an article on its early memes), and  (a review from Electronic Gaming Monthly) as examples. Sources are a bit buried beneath the "how-to" guides and the release-timed ones but I'm 98% certain this passes GNG. Juxlos (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Juxlos (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
 * The first one is a primary source, since it's essentially a press release parroting information from Nintendo. It would be hard to call the 2nd one a significant source since it's mostly a bunch of Twitter posts with light commentary. The third one is the most substantial, but I'd call it more of an examination of Pokemon Go's marketing tactics than the Pokemon itself, simply saying that it looks "weird" and "glitchy". That is what I'd call a "trivial mention".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:GNG per Juxlos. SemiHypercube ✎ 00:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – There are enough sources writing about this Pokémon in enough detail for this six-paragraph article to be fully sourced. It seems the subject meets GNG in large part due to the quantity and variety of sources that have covered it, even if fairly few of them go into depth about the Pokémon itself. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 05:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I think the Kotaku, TechCrunch, and Bloomberg sources push it (barely) over the line. Some trimming and improvement is, however, warranted. Chetsford (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2018 (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.