Talk:Trip's Conkeldurr

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search


Should we note that Trip never won a battle with this Pokémon? It lost against Ash in his first appearance, in it's second appearance to Cilan and it's fifth appearance to Bianca. --Station7 13:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that it never won a battle. It just never won one on screen. It evolved twice so it must have some wins under its belt. Also, if we only saw it battling three times, it's no a notable thing to point out. --ケンジガール 13:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


Am I the only one who thinks this page should be deleted? I know it's appeared three times, but that doesn't really seem like a lot... to argue, Sawyer's Aegislash has appeared even more times, with all of its stages being shown, yet it doesn't have its own page. Just thinking this page is a bit redundant, especially since we don't know much about Conkeldurr at all. the great MIKORO (talk to me) 17:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree in terms of it not reaching notability requirements Mygs (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

there is no way to justify this page; Conkeldurr did nothing outside of battle; that's rule 1 Diamond Lanturn CodeName: 05308 18:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
If its only appearances are battles, then I think just a mention of it in its Trainer's page will suffice. Berrenta (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
So it's settled? Deletion imminent? the great MIKORO (talk to me) 23:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
--KrspaceT (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC) I'm against deleting it. Conkeldurr got more spotlight than any Pokemon trip had bar Servine, and really got more characterization than most of Gary's Pokemon with pages.
Well to argue, Sawyer's Aegislash is quite similar to Trip's Conkeldurr. They've both battled three times, once in every stage of their evolution, and lost all three times. However, Aegislash has had a fourth battle, against Tierno, which it won. So, if Trip's Conkeldurr is page-worthy, then Sawyer's Aegislash is too. the great MIKORO (talk to me) 23:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
--KrspaceT (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Conkeldurr actually did appear outside of battle during his appearences: specifically during the Clubsplosion arc. That one moment showed more character than Aegislash got, and again more than Gary's Mons ever got.
But still, having been shown battling only three times, and losing every single one of them, not to mention, just doesn't make Trip's Conkeldurr page-worthy to me... in fact, it does the exact opposite: it makes it un-page-worthy. Also, I don't really know what you're talking about. Conkeldurr only had like, one or two scenes outside of battling in the Clubsplosion, and that doesn't even help its case since, in those scenes, we didn't learn much about its personality. Look, I'm no administrator or anything, so it's not up to me whether this page gets deleted or not, but I'm just giving my opinion and backing it up. the great MIKORO (talk to me) 00:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this article should stay, I mean there are Pokémon with only one appearance but still have articles. Not to mention Cheryl's Mothim only had 3 appearances as well. -Super10ZX 17:01, Oct 1 2016

Again, to argue, all those Pokémon have their own pages because we just, know a bit more about the personality and other things like that of all the examples you gave, while we don't know about Conkeldurr's personality, let alone anything but it's battling skills. That's why I personally think its page should be deleted. the great MIKORO (talk to me) 17:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
All of those Pokémon had an impact on their respective episode's plot, which is one of the notability requirements. Conkeldurr had no impact in any of its episode's plot, all it did was battle.--ForceFire 04:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Then lets get rid of it! (Sharpens, pitch forks) Diamond Lanturn CodeName: 05308 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. - unsigned comment from Pikachu1000 (talkcontribs)

I'm surprised this page has still not been deleted despite two years passing. GrammarFreak01 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2018 (UTC)