Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Elite Four members


 * 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   Keep. See additional closing rationale on talk page.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Elite Four members

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability guidelines because there are no reliable third-party sources that can verify the contents of this article. None are in the article, and other sources fail to meet their requirements for reliability or independence. Randomran (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment from nominator: I still haven't seen any truly independent reliable sources covering this topic, and zero sources have been added to the article. But I would support a merge or redirect if there were no consensus to delete. In the longer run, if someone did actually find appropriate sources to create a notable article, I would have no prejudice against re-creating the article. Randomran (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please prove this article is notable and verifiable, instead of citing WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Randomran (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That there is no consensus to delete tells me it is notable or when the group is covered in published books. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I find your logic a bit flawed. There is no consensus to keep, either, that tells me it's not notable. Plus, your number one search result is a Quantum Physics book, which I'm fairly certain isn't going to help. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with List_of_Pokemon_characters --UltraMagnus (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of Pokemon characters omitting excessive detail. I don't see notability for an independent article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there no notability for an independent article? Also, I don't think this goes into excessive detail. Each character in the article has only a brief paragraph or two—it doesn't seem excessive to me. SunDragon34 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect into List of Pokemon characters. Individual article not good, merge in list better. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it not good? SunDragon34 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge & Redirect into List of Pokemon characters per Zero Kitsune. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Pokémon characters - falls well within the scope of the other article, and has no justification to be it's own --T-rex 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there no justification for it to be its own article? SunDragon34 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting how the delete argument vary. First the arguments say it isn't notable because there are no usable sources. GRC produced a few dozen sources, some of which are actually independent of the franchise. By the notability criterion based on the existence of source that was invoked, they are thus notable. So then the argument shifts to they not being notable anyway. But there is no such concept in Wikipedia as intrinsic non-notability. The only thing that such an argument means, is that one doesn't want it to be in Wikipedia, which is just saying I dont like it. I defy anyone to say why these characters are intrinsically non-notable even when there are sources? True, they are not the least bit important to me, and I would be just as satisfied if they never existed. What does that have to do with Wikipedia? My personal interests are not the standard. It would be a much smaller Wikipedia if that were the standard, and probably not of much use to anyone but me. I'm here to write about the things that interest m, and I rather resent having to spend time defending the things of interest to other people that are just as important. It should at this point be common knowledge that a large part of the world considers these characters as notable. Do we need an article on each? Yes, if we intend to be a 21st century general encyclopedia. But if we don't have enough people willing to write them well, then we have to make do with the combination articles.    Like this. The question of how or whether to merge it to a general list does not belong here. It seems to me that one article for all of them would be too long for many readers. And Ningauble, what exactly is "excessive detail"?  How does that affect deletion anyway. Since we are not paper, we can and should have as much detail as the sources support. If we could write 5000 words on each character, why not? As long as someone other than me does it. DGG (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm curious: which one of the links in Le Roi's search is a decent source on, well, anything? The only things that aren't game guides or fictional works are a student-newspaper article on Pokémon used as an example of a student newspaper article in a book on media education, someone's self-published personal journal, and, um, this, which I'm pretty sure is not an excerpt from Modified Maxwell Equations in Quantum Electrodynamics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, I apologize for the redlink. I forgot what I was doing. By "excessive" in-world detail I mean in relation to the larger coverage of a fictional work. I take my guidance from WP:PLOT, which I interpret to mean that the discussion of real-world reception, impact, and significance should be given substantially greater coverage than the description of in-world elements. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In response DGG's initial comment, I'd like to point out (for the sake of argument) that, as of this comment, no one has voted for delete, simply merge and redirect, a method by which no vital information would be lost. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge: That makes sense.  I agree; we can let this one go.  It should be merged and redirected to the main list of characters.  Thanks for the elaboration, Ningauble and Jelly Soup. SunDragon34 (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Condense and then figure out what to do with what remains (i.e. make an editorial decision and not a policy decision). Infoboxen don't really belong in a list of nineteen and there's at least some material that can quickly be cut due to WP:VGSCOPE (example from the first entry: "In Lorelei's case all of her Pokémon are boosted by several levels..."). On a side note, I'd like to point interested editors to the RFC on Notability which is in part meant to address articles like these. Nifboy (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I can see where these merge opinions are coming from, since there's already a section dedicated to them in the list. Nifboy (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Pokemon characters. We are not here to question WP:N nor the general notability guideline; please place the appropriate grievances on the respective talk pages or at WP:WHINE. Unless someone can find verifiable, third-party sources that cover details past what is trivially covered in the Pokemon list, then a merge seems to make the most sense. MuZemike (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Pokémon characters, with some of the content going into game articles. These are really minor characters in the scheme of things, and all of Le Roi's "sources" aren't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Pokémon characters, in my opinion the elite four arent notable to have there own article. Salavat (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, enough content to warrant a separate article. Everyking (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's notable? So you have some sources we can use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, as a matter of fact I do: Le Roi already linked that, but maybe it bears repeating. Everyking (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, crap, so nothing but strategy guides and fiction. Oh well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What, you don't think that counts? Everyking (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Counts for what? Notability isn't really at issue here, so I'm just looking for sources that offer some sort of insight other than "Use fire types to defeat the steel trainer!" Game guides offer only the most superficial commentary, so they're pretty lousy for actually trying to write an article. I had hoped that your claim that this was notable was based on the idea that "notable" means a subject with sufficient appropriate references to write an article and not just "Well, I think it's important," because these articles have been unsourced for years now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Substantial coverage in published sources is plenty good enough for me. Everyking (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough for you, but our guidelines require that the source be reliable and independent of the subject too. A guidebook is authorized by the creator, and not independent. Randomran (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can argue that they aren't reliable, and I don't think the fact that a company authorizes a game guide prevents us from saying that it's an independent source. Furthermore, not all game guides are authorized. Everyking (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Substantial enough for what? We are not facing an alternative between keep and delete (note the lack of delete opinions beyond the nom), but instead an alternative between a decent article and a redirect. Let's can the same old WP:N-isn't-satisfied nuh-uh-it-is crap and try and discuss actually writing an article. Now, do you have any idea how we could find sources on this that aren't "Use fire types to defeat the steel trainer"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While it would be nice to have other kinds of sources, I feel that what we have already is sufficient to justify the article's existence. Everyking (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. Strategy guides are usually not published independently of the video game, no notability cannot be asserted merely from a strategy guide. Notability also requires more than just indicating the mere existence of the article; please read WP:GNG. MuZemike (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you have nothing to help. Rats. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep WP:Article size is already >40k so merge is probably not sensible. WikiScrubber (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the moot point of WP:SIZE, I change to delete for the same rationale I have stated above. MuZemike (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (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.