Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (21-40)


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 13:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (21-40)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

So here is the second part of a collection of unnecessary lists. We have one huge list and also individual articles for all Pokemon species. So this list is a pure duplication. Also, it cannot give all the details that the Pokemon articles give. As the creation of such a list is against Wikipedia's policies, I think it should be deleted. Vikrant Phadkay 13:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The subject of this AfD is NOT redundant to the individual articles, as it is a work in progress by nine different editors to merge non-notable Pokémon, a fact which the nominator was well aware of. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What? The list isn't including non-notable Pokemon in any way or for any reason. It aims at including all Pokemon which is an irrational thought. If anyone thinks I am trying to illustrate a point through all this, then by that logic we just can go about claiming every deletion request to be a personal crossfire. And I can also make a claim that all those heroes in favour of merging Pokemon articles are illustrating their point by creating this article! Vikrant Phadkay 14:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some Pokemon will still have articles. I suggest you take a look at Template:Main. Fun  pika  15:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep- The specific Pokemon articles will only exist while the list is being created. Once that is done most Pokemon will most likely become redirects. Also, the nominator appears to be doing this to get rid of an idea he is not fond of.  Fun  pika  14:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This page is not a reflection of any idea. The articles are too important and notable to be merged. And we already have a list(why not edit that?). Number 1 to 20, 20 to 40 it is all a "Sock-puppetry of Articles". I have some more suggestions: Merge Ash, Misty and Brock with Pokemon anime! And then merge anime, games, and manga with Pokemon. The time spent on creating such lists will surely be several years more than that spent on completing individual articles! Why did'nt anyone think of this before making the lists? Vikrant Phadkay 14:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "idea" of a mega-merge of most Pokemon species articles on Wikipedia. And are all Pokemon major characters in the series? Is whismer as important as Pikachu? A lot are probably minor characters. Fun  pika  15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Mega-merge? Probably minor?" Doubtful reasons are no reasons for making articles. And yes, we can surely go about making bold claims of varying notability: Is Arthur Miller as important as Marylin Monroe? Is the London Eye as important as the Big Ben? So go and fanatically merge all of them! Vikrant Phadkay 14:32, 19 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)
 * Keep The Pokemon franchise is notable enough that it is appropriate to have a list with the basic details of each of the 493 characters. But there should not be individual articles for any which do not satisfy WP:A and WP:N by having multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of the individual character. Perhaps we can eventually get rid of the "Pokemon test argument" in which we are chastised for wanting to keep an article about a real-world thing or person on the grounds that if we have 493 articles about non-notable Pokemon characters, what is the harm of keeping an article about one more professor, school, library, musical group, or church. Edison 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm neutral on the question of the actual merge, but I strongly doubt that AfD is the appropriate venue to discuss an in-progress reorganization. JavaTenor 17:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No! That way, I too have a reason: this article was created very much for providing back-up in that dispute! Vikrant Phadkay 14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm calling WP:POINT.  If it's a merge in progress, leave it alone! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute - why are all of you thinking about WP:POINT? Isn't the creation of this article a violation of it too? Vikrant Phadkay 14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article wasn't designed to make your life miserable. The lists have been discussed on WT:PCP. You got mad because more people were working on the lists and not on the WP:PCP focus article. You also appear to be unhappy since the articles you contributed to and like are going to be merged together. I am starting to become suspicious of a WP:OWN violation. Fun  pika  15:37, 19 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, per my comment on this related AFD. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is already a list of all the Pokemon and each have their own article. TJ Spyke 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't intended to replicate List of Pokémon, nor is it intended to duplicate the information (permanently, that is) covered in the individual species articles; it's a work-in-progress of merging the essential information of the species articles into fewer pages, after which the species articles will most likely be redirected (and thus the information won't be needlessly duplicated on more than one page). – mcy1008  ( talk ) 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per my comment on the List of Pokémon (1-20) AFD. hbdragon88 23:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ' Delete I said it before, and I'll say it again. Merging will be terrible because each article would get "Too long article" tag. Though I agree that this isn't the right place to come with solution. TheBlazikenMaster 13:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep' after viewing Erik's work, it isn't as bad idea as I thought.
 * Yes the "too long" tag will surely come. Or possibly this list won't give all the facts that individual articles do. So here is another good reason why this article is unnecessary. Vikrant Phadkay 14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there were a comment that verified that you're using the AfD to make a WP:POINT, this would be it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * comment actually, if the articles exceed 32 KB i will request that the lists are smaller. however, this article is near completeness and it hasn't yet hit that mark. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep won't be reduntant was the pokemon articles become redirects. I think that this is vaible solution to having individual pokemon articles. The Placebo Effect 12:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's your grudge against individual articles? You can't maintain them? Sorry, I can't stand manifestations of laziness. Vikrant Phadkay 14:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't harass people who don't agree with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to call Vikrant's actions a violation of WP:NPA. Appropriate warning template left on his user talk page. Fun  pika  19:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems a little harsh... He just has strong opinions, in my point of view. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * On closer investigation, I suppose that could be interpreted as a personal attack, implying that TPE (or at least his current opinion) is a manifestation of laziness... But I think it's possible that wasn't meant as a PA on his part, more like general frustration with what appeared to him as laziness among Wikipedians in general (which could be the truth as far as we know... ulp!). Let's not turn this into a flame war, folks. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 19:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All i meant was that alot of people have been questioning why every individual pokemon needs an article and I view this as a viable alternative. The Placebo Effect 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy throw out nomination as per related AFD discussion. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:02, 23 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.