Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooloo
This nomination appears to be malformed and not properly argued on  grounds. 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 or judging their subjective importance within a series is irrelevant, and demanding that a higher bar should be set just for Pokémon material is simply an |other stuff exists or  argument. Why should articles about Pokémon 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 Pokémon articles which lay down rules on what qualities a particular Pokémon species must possess before they are entitled to a standalone article? 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, and that is not hard to establish because the vast, vast majority of Pokémon do not get article-length coverage from a real world perspective anyway. A cursory look at available sourcing, both cited or uncited in this article per  and , indicate there is sufficient coverage specifically about the character, and the article does not revolve around in-universe cruft or original research
— NONE, NONE
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:NEXIST||WP:OSE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:SNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:BEFORE||WP:ATD (Wikipedia:Notability)