Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon


 * 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. WP:SNOW keep, per overwhelming, immediate opposition to deletion, as well as long-standing community consensus that lead to this compromise (see WP:PTEST). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  17:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Pokémon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

violates WP:GAMECRUFT number 6. S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. As much as I hate to say it, it does violate the rules. Rectar2 (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 *  Delete : per nominator. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  07:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline of the videogames project. I'm not sure it can be considered a proper guideline but, in any case, Pokemon are not just videogame elements; they are also characters in TV and movies; trading cards, physical soft toys and models, &c.  Moreover, the nomination fails to consider the more detailed lists such as List of Pokémon (387–440).  You should start with those before deleting the master list.  The list in question is a true list rather than just being bundles of cruft and so has value as an index per WP:CLN. Andrew (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know this is ridiculous, but the history of Pokémon on Wikipedia is very, very long and contentious. The amount of discussion the whole issue has generated is out of all proportion to its importance.  To give you an idea, there's a WikiProject Pokémon that still probably has fifty-odd active participants even now (and hundreds of historical ones).  Wikipedians who were around in 2006 might remember the Pokémon Test?  The whole thing blew up into a very long and convoluted discussion in 2006-7 which spread across an awful lot of places, but there's a good example here.  We finished up with the compromise and uneasy status quo that we currently have about Pokémon, not because either side "won" the discussion, but because it became clear that nobody was ever going to. I'm sorry, folks, but there's no way that point six of a content guideline dreamed up by a few editors at WikiProject Video Games outweighs all that historical discussion.  Regardless of the rights and wrongs, I don't think there's any realistic prospect of achieving a consensus to delete the List of Pokémon.— S Marshall  T/C 10:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Pokémon notified.— S Marshall T/C 10:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. They can NOT delete this. Pokemon on Wikipedia just has too much history. Also, @Andrew Davidson does have a point. WP:GAMECRUFT is for video games. Pokemon has a bunch of different things, like toys and TV shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMachine03 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep entirely separate from notability or cruft; it's a handy index for all of the Pokémon covered in their own pages and in lists. Tezero (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: No way is this a legitimate nomination, someone is screwing with us, I have no doubt. And that's the last thing I will say about Pokemon for years, I hope.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly Pokémon is discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources. Either this index list or other detailed lists meet WP:LISTN.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Snow keep. Plenty of secondary sources in a simple WP:VG/RS search (even in the article) assert the notability of a list of Pokémon. Moreover, gamecruft#6 doesn't even apply here (the list is basic identifying info). These aren't minutiae of a game but the mainstay of a gigantic franchise that has expanded well past video games. I'd even say speedy if there weren't other delete votes. czar ♔   15:43, 24 July 2014 (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.