Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Dew

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. No objection to a redirect being created, though. Jamie^☆S93 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Dew[edit]

Non-notable Pokémon thingamabob. The article fails the notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability, and no reliable secondary sources exist. TheLeft orium 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real-world context and therefore no notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Somebody's stolen the Soul Dew!" Oh, I mean Delete that puppy! -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 00:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single in-game item doesn't need a full article. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 17:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it’s well-written and I disagree that no reliable secondary sources exist, concensus has long been that this level of specificity should be left to Bulbapedia. Actually, the article and image seem to have been copied form there, and I don’t think Bulbapedia’s licensing policy allows that - yet another reason to kill it. --WikidSmaht (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pokemon; plausable search term. Marasmusine (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.