Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popplio
to List of generation VII Pokémon#Popplio. The article in Kotaku about plushie doesn't seem very relevant. https://www.techradar.com/sg/news/gaming/popplio-continues-pokemon-s-tradition-of-the-unlucky-number-three-1321344 This doesn't seem very in depth, it's a bloggish rant about some Pokemon design the article's author doesn't like, and doesn't even focus on Popplio that much - it rants about several designs. How does this type of coverage help us? Minor Internet-era author ranted at a minor outlet in passing about this entity? Ugh. https://www.nintendoworldreport.com/feature/42714/the-nwr-pokemon-sun-and-moon-starter-debate-the-case-for-popplio Is the same but even more niche of an outlet (this time the author seems to like the design?). https://www.pastemagazine.com/games/the-power-of-helplessness-why-everybody-loves-mimi/ And this is more like the first one but better written. Ok, it seems a few people commented about his design, but I am not convinced the source quality is enough here and I'd recommend merge, while preserving the better part of the reception. All that said, this is better than most other Pokemons which get nothing but how to game-related guides, but frankly, to make this notable, I'd want to see coverage that goes beyond few ranting fans who managed to get few bucks for getting their hack writing published on a niche gaming portal. If the controversy about its design or the design itself gets written up by mainstream media or academics, then I'd vote keep. For now, I think this doesn't meet . With the proliferation of low quality online commentary about virtually anything, a few low quality rants should not be enough to meet GNG. PS. I read the discussion above now and it seems I am echoing
— User:Czar, 05:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)