Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drifloon
to List of generation IV Pokémon after a cursory look at available sourcing per  and , as there appears to be insufficient dedicated coverage about the character. However, the nomination appears to be malformed and not properly argued on  grounds, and it is primarily concerned with article content, an editorial concern, as opposed to |a proper discernment on whether suitable sources exist. Highlighting that there are 800+ other species and demanding that a higher bar should be set is irrelevant and simply an |other stuff exists or  argument. So what? Why should articles about Pokemon species be scrutinized any differently from all other articles about fictional characters or elements, when they are all covered by  and there is no special  specifically dedicated to Pokemon articles which lay down rules on what qualities a particular Pokemon species must possess before they are entitled to a standalone article? And no, the so-called Pokemon test does not count and it was never a vetted and accepted guideline to begin with. The only consideration for editors to consider would be, either the subject have  from reliable, independent sources ''or'' they don't, according to their own interpretation
— User:Haleth, 18:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:BEFORE||WP:ATD||WP:GNG||WP:NEXIST||WP:OSE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:SNG||WP:SIGCOV (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion)