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. Buck  ets  ofg 00:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (1-20)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There is no reason for the creation of this article. This is because all the Pokemon included in it are notable enough to have their own articles. Also, why the list is 1 to 20 only is not explained. Thus the article is seriously harming the integrity of Wikipedia and should be deleted. Vikrant Phadkay 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I agree, I personally think it's dumb idea to merge pokémon. TheBlazikenMaster 18:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC) Change my vote to Keep after viewing Erik's work, I can see that nothing will be lost. TheBlazikenMaster 17:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Active merger discussion is going on on said article's talk page. Quite a few people within the PCP project (A Man In Black before he left, Erik the Apperciator, You Can't See Me, Amarkov, me; even Zappernapper, but he favors evo line merging) do not agree that all the Pokemon are notable enough to each have their own articles.  Please do not attempt to use WP:AFD to force merger decisions or to delete an idea that you disagree with. hbdragon88 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that this page is not just for disagreeing merging. It is because the list is a thoughtless duplication.Vikrant Phadkay 13:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Isn't there a list of all the pokemon anyway? Who cares about weather the pokemon articles desrve to be there this is about this article. DBZROCKS 11:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The list of all Pokémon serves a different purpose, as it merely lists the Pokémon and doesn't give any descriptions (that would make the page much too long!). This page, on the other hand, is a work-in-progress merger of different Pokémon species pages (meaning articles like Whismur). – mcy1008  ( talk ) 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hmm, looking at the comments here, does that mean some would prefer deleting the 25 planned list pages and just do the merging by evo line while leaving the single-stage Pokepages like Dunsparce alone? (That mergist plan is the creation of, a plan which I had disagreed with myself somewhat, and Zappernapper's compromise merge plan using the 25 list pages is the one that was trying to be implemented here prior to the AFD) Whatever consensus decides is what I would support personally. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the Pokemon franchise is notable enough to justify a list of the characters. But possibly expand it to include all of them, or have as few separate lists as possible to facilitate searching for information and delete all individual articles which lack multiple independent sources with substantial coverage of the individual character, in accord with WP:A. The info about each can be pared down enough to fit in one list by removing unsourced original research and excessive detail. Edison 14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy throw out this discussion this is a gross violation of WP:POINT. The nominator has expressed disagreement with a planned merger and is using this AFD to try and gain support of his view.  Discussion on the subject of a merge has been done in the past, several times.  Erik is really good at finding them all so i'll leave it up to him if anyone wants more than the most recent.  If anyone outside of the project is interested in this, and the precendent it might set, discussion is invited at the article's talk page, this talk page, or at the project. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not nearly as good as the big list and the individual articles. The merging idea has been suggested before, but never was there anything resembling consensus for it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the big list, this serves a different purpose, describing rather than simply listing. As for the individual articles, they generally do not have much sourced information in them, short of a few headers and a few sentences under each header. They can easily be summarized in a single section of a list such as this. – mcy1008  ( talk ) 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Its totally unfair to nominate an article for deletion when there is active discussion going on the talk page. Deletion is not even mentioned once in the talk page and until it is this should be closed quickly. --PrincessBrat 19:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delay AfD If there's a merge discussion going on right now, and it predates the AfD, it should probably be considered first. i kan reed 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, per the other nomination. I smell a WP:POINT, and the articles are being merged.  Let them be until then. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, violation of WP:POINT. It is a merge in process, and the AfD creator is fully aware of this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am inclined to agree that there is an influence of WP:POINT violation here, but it's not because I am in anyway close to this article or related pages concerning this mergism effort; there was a lot of discussion over at WP:POKE for at least the past five months about how many of the 493 separate articles on Pokemon species, having hardly been the subject of coverage by reliable second-party sources as per WP:ATT, must rely on game guide, trivia, and sourcing to fansites to fill them up with content lest they remain unexpandable stubs (none of this is my personal opinion about this, it's what the other users citing Wikipedia's content policies were saying; I would have been content with having it remain at 493 articles had none of those debates took place), and it was suggested, by myself at times, that implementing an alternative setup of species sharing articles would both remove the need for such mediocre information, promote the more practical information about the species to more of Wikipedia's general demographic of readers rather than just to the Pokemon fan community, and possibly allow for better sourcing. I and others suggested several merge plans over time, and they generally did not gerner much consunsus at all like Starblind notes above, but recently a proposal came up that garnered more consensus than before (detailed here and here). Based on the apparent consensus to do that, I made this page and started making its companion pages and template (which obviously aren't anywhere nere being finished, BTW), because I consider myself a strict supporter of consensus. I believe this AFD nomination somewhat violates WP:POINT like many others here are saying, not just for the reason they give, but that the nominator may have benefited from carefully reading the complete debates about merging species pages in WP:POKE's history (where applicable Wikipedia content policies were often cited) to find out firsthand everything I just detailed historically, and then engaging the project critically, constructively, and thoroughly before making the decision to attempt an AFD (discussions in particular are linked here and below in its subsections, here, here, and here and below in its subsections for easier reference), but his AFD nomination and telling me outright to stop making the pages doesn't really help matters. I think this could have been a good-faith mistake and misinterpretation of Wikipedia content policy on the nominator's part, and I most certainly do NOT want to antagonize anybody on the internet with what I do on Wikipedia, which is why I make it a point to follow consensus, and if consensus either calls for making a Pokemon species mega-merge or for not making it and keeping it at 493 separate articles, I'll follow it. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Erik, to explain my stance, when I saw the talk page on WP:POKE and found Vikrant's comment linking to this very AFD (and in fact describing this as "something to wish them luck"), I could only assume it was flat-out trying to prove a point. I suspect this and the other are bad-faith nominations, but can't be sure - but they sure sound like it.  The politics in the project might say otherwise, so I'll leave that in your hands. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Vikrant Phadkay is just a staunch opposer of the merging (as well as the delisting Torchic and the failed nom of Crawdaunt), that's all. More users agree than disagree with the merger.  AFD is not the appropriate venue to discuss this, however. hbdragon88 23:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop this nonsense. I don't rely on votes but on reason. Vikrant Phadkay 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...with all due respect, what reason? What I saw is that you didn't like the concept of a merge of these articles, so you nominated the targets for deletion!  That, to me, is a violation of WP:POINT and an act of bad faith! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And please mind your language! I made Torchic and Crawdaunt A-class articles while everyone else simply criticized them! Vikrant Phadkay 14:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You made Torchic A-clss? Rofl.   made it FA class.  And A-class is a notch down from FA class. hbdragon88 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some had questioned the notability of pokemon and merging them to these lists seems like the percfect solution. I see no merit for deleting the list as serves a purpose without going in to too much detail. The Placebo Effect 12:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you see that list before coming here? It has so many notable Pokemon! Vikrant Phadkay 14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you see Template:Main before coming here? It fixes the problem! Fun  pika  15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, list pages like this aren't the main part of the mergism concept being debated here, this is actually about Pidgey evolutionary line, an example of what a merged-by-evo-line page that would apply to most Pokemon with evo-lines would look like, and it's far from completed. As Zappernapper claims, talking about the Pidgey line members in one article provides far more likeliness to forge a real article by Wikipedia standards, because there's more info and context about them, so those are much more likely to attain GA and A-Rank status than most of the individual pages which were agreed in the past by others that they couldn't make it past stub status much of the time. Of course, none of this should be considered strictly my opinion; my opinion right now is that I won't bother touching any of these pages until after the debates have settled on a conclusion or solution, whatever it may be. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I thinnk all article like this should be merged but only as a list evolutionary lines(see Pidgey's)--Tempest115 20:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean one big article? Wouldn't that create the longest article in Wikipedia history? Or do you mean only have the evolution lists and not the normal ones? Fun  pika  21:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps merge as you guys are discussing, but I'd think an evo chart might be a good supplement to the articles.  But that's just me. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Out of curiosity, where were all of you when this discussion was going on? Why are you just complaining about it after the fact? However you look at it, there was a consensus to merge, and if you came to this discussion or the one it links to, you might have had a say in how they would be merged. In fact, these discussions are still on active pages, and yet somebody decided to come complaining here. As noted multiple times above, this sounds a lot like somebody's disrupting a Wikipedia project to make a point.  You Can't See Me!  03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All this information is available on other pages. This page is not needed. Michaelritchie200 11:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is because those other pages are in the process of being merged into this page. – mcy1008  ( talk ) 15:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This series of pages, at least. Just to clarify.  You Can't See Me!  19:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- I am going to say keep because the nominator should have paid attention to the discussions on this matter. This is also a merge in progress. The nominator appears to be violating WP:POINT and possibly even WP:OWN. Fun  pika  20:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - for those interested, centralized discussion is being attempted at WP:PCP/Layout. The page has the specific guidelines that are being proposed, however it should be noted that it is still a work in progress. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - There's still debate going on in re the merging, and although I am an opponent of the grouping by evo-line and oppose this (list 20 at a time) measure based on the fact that all it will do is make Pikachu that much more special, it is the most practical way to deal with the inherent problems of crufty and shifty sources for each one of the articles. I feel that Vikrant needs to step away from the grindstone and put the axe down. -Jeske (v^_^v) 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Btw, there will prolly be less activity coming from the project than usual... we're all playing DP! -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean YOU are playing Diamond and Pearl. Please don't speak for everybody, I like the anime more than the games, so you're wrong not all of us are playing that game. Anyway, this nomination will be done tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 19:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha. Well! If that's the case, that must mean you'll have the time to fully contribute to the merger discussions that will occur at WP:PCP/Layout. In fact, everyone on here should take notice that it will be at that talk page where all discussions, ideas, oppositions, and concerns for the Pokemon-species merger project will be centralized. Says Zapper, at least. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 20:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment For those wondering where this is going, check out the articles to be created at Template:Pokemon_directory. -- Jreferee 22:21, 24 April 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.