Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1-20) (2nd nomination)

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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 09:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (1-20)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1-20)
• Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1-20) (2nd nomination)

List of Pokémon (1-20) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page is pointless. There's no need for a small synopsis when one can be found on every Pokémon's respective page. Cipher ^{(Talk to the hand)} 13:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Suggest creation of a new category which will dynamically list each entry. That way, the notable subjects (with their respective articles) will be included in a single directory. This will also spare all the extra effort that might be spent on maintaining this list. --Aarktica 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep per related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porygon evolutionary line. The Pokemon wikiproject seems to be in the midst of a large merger project involving these articles, and given the scope of the effort I am willing to allow them some time to complete the merge. Suggest revisiting this issue after a month or so to check for progress, and if its still in a poor state, relist here at AfD. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porygon evolutionary line - it also applies here. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Nominator's reasons seem to ignore the past discussion that went on at the last AFD. This is a merge in progress, the duplicated information will eventually be deleted and redirected. For more info, please see WP:PCP/Layout. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Another user had complained about the split of the larger article in to these articles during the first AfD back in April (which is, evidently, a merge in progress at this time). My opinion hasn't changed - the attempt to delete these reeks of a WP:POINT to me, since consensus on the Pokemon project page seems to have stated that this should be done. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per the tiger above. This is a merge in progress here. Give it some time to finish merging, and then wait for the redundant info to disappear. If the redundant info's still around a month or so from now, then AfD it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am against the PROPOSED merger, since it doesn't solve the "problem" that resulted in the merger idea (lack of RS). TJ Spyke 05:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. Merger in progress. If nominator opposes merger, discussion at WT:POKE is the more appropriate venue. hbdragon88 06:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: Merging in progress. Stop trying to prevent it with faulty nominations. We've made consensus, it's over. They're being merged. --Teggles 06:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I should notify everyone that using the series of descriptive, supplemental List pages of which this page is a part of may not be the only way to cover the many Pokemon species that don't have evolutionary relatives (which is actually the purpose of this page; to fill in the gaps left behind by merging Pokemon into evolutionary line pages like Porygon evolutionary line). I have proposed what could be a viable alternative to this series of pages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon/Layout#About_those_Pokemon_that_don.27t_evolve...; everyone may want to hold a discussion over there about that. If that plan gets consensus, I will support deleting this page. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it ain't broken, don't fix it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is broken, at least read the backstory or even this page. The majority of Pokemon articles are being merged into evolutionary lines. However, because some do not have evolutionary lines, they would need their own article. The problem with this is that those articles most definitely fail WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOR. Solution? These articles. We are fixing it, and as I've shown, the thing is fucked. :) --Teggles 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The articles are not redundant, because they are a part of a merge process that would seek to make the articles not redundant. No point in deleting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I heavily doubt that anyone here voting "Delete" (including the nominator and excepting Ryulong and TJ Spyke) has read any of the debates over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete I find listing rediculous. There shouldn't be little details, and three links leading to the same article. I agree with the merging, but I still disagree with this. It should be on some list, but this isn't right list. This isn't a main article. Most lists have less detailed info anyway. TheBlazikenMaster 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• The article can easily change to be more in-depth. This will happen when they are actually merged. The fact that you voted "strong delete" is pretty ridiculous. --Teggles 04:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I'll call this one saying that this is unencyclopedic. There is no need to split "1-20", "21-40", and so on when List of Pokémon do just fine. Furthermore, the format of these articles seem to be more like "articles for naviational purposes" rather than true encyclopedia articles, making this redundant (if the information is in here, it would be better in List of Pokémon. I also question whether the consensus to proceed with the merge even exists if there is so much opposition to it, but that's not of the concern of this nomination. kelvSYC 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find myself inclined to agree here because this is a duplication of information that is meant to provide places where Pokemon that don't evolve, such as Farfetch'd, the space to get their due coverage; it would be at List of Pokemon (81-100) that one section would be much more comprehensive than others, and not have a Main Article link, and that's Farfetch'd's section. This was Zappernapper (talk · contribs)'s plan for dealing with Pokemon that don't evolve and therefore can't be merged into each other; I believe I have thought up a better alternative to this list page for covering unevolving Pokemon, and it's detailed here, which is a way to merge unevolving Pokemon together more directly without the need for list pages like this. I wonder if that would get more consensus as a component of the merge plan than these supplemental list pages. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There are so many websites on Pokemon characters. It's just not wikipedia material. I understand we're different from Britannica, but no. Too open. Feydakin 00:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Your reasoning also applies to Dungeons & Dragons, Naruto, Harry Potter, etc. The fact that there are other websites has little-to-no bearing on Wikipedia - in fact, read through Wikipedia talk:Pokémon Collaborative Project/Archive 14#We're in trouble. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• This article is actually in favor of you. It helps us to cut down the number of Pokemon articles by merging them here. You've also made little basis in terms of policies and guidelines, simply said "It's not Wikipedia material". --Teggles 21:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Give each Pokemon its own page, or there is little point. Pokemon like Pikachu and Meowth are well known and so there is a lot of information on them. It seems consistent to keep pages for all other Pokemon too.--Michaelritchie200 17:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus is that Pikachu and Mewtwo are the exception, not the rule. Meowth is already detailed with the rest of Team Rocket. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• First off, notability, not popularity. Secondly, saying that every Pokemon should have an article if two others do is illogical. They all have different notability levels. Pikachu, for example, is well documented, but Vileplume is unheard of. --Teggles 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just naming two for examples. And Meowth the character has been documented on the Team Rocket page, but not the Pokemon. Michaelritchie200 07:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per comments above, and per original nomination. Don't keep nominating this just to make a point. Pokemon articles are here to stay. G1ggy! 04:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete... we've long since passed the point where 6000 pokemon articles is considered acceptable... thats why there is such a thing as Wikia ... make a freaking pokemon wikia, fill it to the brim with the sort of random cruft we have here. There is 0, absolutely no reason this encyclopedia needs an article for each and every single pokemon, each game, lists of who what when where was released... we certainly dont need multiple lists of said data.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please understand, these articles are for cutting down the amount of Pokemon articles. They are placed to merge the main Pokemon articles to. So basically 500 articles will cut down to 200 or something. I agree with you, but I'm disappointed in the fact you didn't read anything other than the nomination text. --Teggles 07:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I still say Delete, but one more thing - every single Digimon has its own page too. Are they to be cut down as well? Michaelritchie200 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they should be. But don't start pulling a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on me. --Teggles 07:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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.