Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not really notable enough to have an article. No significant impact on the real world as far as I'm aware. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. InvalidOS talk  11:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:POKEMON. There’s just no need to spin-out a stand-alone article here. Much of the article is overly-wordy fluff too - very little of substance is actually said. The reception section in particular looks like someone just did a Google search of every inconsequential passing mention of the subject from game reviews. Sergecross73   msg me  19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sergecross73. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have anything to say. This breaks my heart.   Oshawott 12  ==== Talk to me!  02:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sergecross73. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep This article does meet the notability guidelines. Yes, it has its issues, it can be improved! GavinDavis02 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * How? This was your fourth all-time edit, so I’m interested in seeing how exactly you feel you know better than everyone else here... Sergecross73   msg me  21:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly read through the notability guidelines to come to that conclusion GavinDavis02 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Explain how it specifically meets the notability requirements then. You haven’t stated anything to indicate you understand how it does. Sergecross73   msg me  01:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of third-party sources listed in the references already, and it didn't take long at all to find several more GavinDavis02 (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please list off the reliable third party sources that you feel provide significant coverage. Please provide them here for evaluation. Sergecross73   msg me  02:57, 14 April 2019 (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.