Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (1–20)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (1–20)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a fork of List of Pokémon which already provides a better and complete list of Pokemon. The basis of selection of numbers 1-20 is arbitrary, not supported by reliable sources and so not notable. Suggesting that there is some special relationship between these numbers is improper synthesis as this specific selection is not supported by reliable sources. It is purely a creation of Wikipedia editors and so is improper original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that sections of the Pokemon as a whole are not notable, or that 1-20, 21-40, etc isn't the way to do it, and should be changed? Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that a list of 20 arbitrary Pokemon is obviously redundant to the complete list of all of them and so should be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be like deleting List of Mario series characters and making a table list of all the characters. It is silly and should not be done. These characters deserve list sections just as much. List of Pokémon is a WP:DIRECTORY of the numbered lists. Both can, and will, exist together. There have been many deletion discussions on these lists, and they have all resulted in keep for a reason. Doing it again and again every year wont change the facts. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding your point about Mario. That game series seems to have a single list and that's what I'm suggesting we should confine ourselves to here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has one list, but it has paragraphs of text. If all 500+ Pokemon had pharagraphs of text in one article, that would be way too long. This is split up in a reasonable way. We have talked at WikiProject Pokemon about merging them into lists of 50 instead of 20. The discussions kept dieing though. Would you be ok with that? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Suggest this may be a WP:POINT nomination over the current AFD discussion for Bulbasaur. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My nomination is quite sincere. It's just like Articles for deletion/Criticism of The New York Times which was suggested by another parallel AFD and which was duly deleted because it failed to satisfy our core policies, just like the article in question here.  And FYI, because I tire of these uncivil insinuations that my nominations for deletion are dishonest, you may expect to see more.  Today we also have Articles for deletion/Gabon at the 2000 Summer Olympics, for example.  It is sad that one has to regularly destroy the work of others to be taken seriously but so it goes. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is a needed fork, the List of Pokémon has only the basic one line of information on each Pokémon while this one goes into more detail about each one. The purpose of this list is so you can have a paragraph or two of each Pokémon without having to create an article for each one. The numbering isn't arbitrary. It is (1-20) because that was what was decided was the perfect amount of Pokemon for the list so it wouldn't be too small or too large. There are approx. 100 references so there is no problem with notability or original research. I see no reason for deletion. Tavix | Talk  18:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This allows appropriate coverage of a notable franchise while meeting WP:LENGTH. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tavix. List of Pokémon was divided into lists like this one to meet the requirements of Article size. No original research here. Theleftorium (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Point-making AfD created by user who is vocally opposed to the merging. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current Pokémon lists provide a good balance between the need to allow for expansion and the need to keep page sizes reasonable. In fact, if we were to merge all of the existing Pokémon lists into one megalist, the potential loading time of that megalist over a slow dial-up internet connection could potentially annoy readers who use such internet connections. Furthermore, the idea of restricting coverage of the group of all Pokémon species to a mere table just doesn't make sense considering the notability of the Pokémon franchise. -- SoCalSuperEagle ( talk ) 00:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Pokemon list is a navigational tool, this and the others in the set are a good compromise which allows WP to cover the critters without having an article each unless the sourcing is available to support one. Someoneanother 04:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per SoCalSuperEagle. Also, I'd argue that this list is what makes List of Pokémon useful, not the other way around. – sgeureka t•c 08:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - WP:POINT and WP:SNOW --138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - bad-faith nomination by a user who isn't getting his way over at another AfD, trying to do an end-around of the likely result there. Tarc (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Comprehensive listing. Not too large for article sizing. No issue here. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2010 (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.