Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon (461–480)


 * 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 SNOW keep  Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Pokémon (461–480)

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

The article starts "This is a selected listing of twenty of the Pokemon species...". The article only has 10 sources - do the math. None of these sources seem to support this selection as they either cover Pokemon in general or other selections such as the "Top 5 Lamest Pokemon". The article thus violates our policies that Wikipedia is not a game guide or indiscriminate catalog. It also seems to violate our notability guideline in that this topic - "Pokemon 461-480" - is not covered by reliable, independent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - If you nominated one of these lists, you're essentially nominating the entire collection of lists for deletion, which is downright ridiculous because Pokemon is a notable series and the creation of these lists was decided by a very lengthy discussion. Just because an article lacks full sourcing isn't grounds for deletion. Are you suggesting that all the Pokemon articles be re-created instead?--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an argument to avoid per WP:ALLORNOTHING, "The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article.". Please address the merits of this particular article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is still a disruptive WP:POINT nomination and you don't give any valid reasons why one or any of the lists should be deleted besides the fact that it's an "indiscriminate list" (which it isn't because it's clearly about the Pokemon).--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The nomination provides three clear reasons - that the list is arbitrary/indiscriminate; that it is game guide material; and that the topic is not notable. An additional reason is that it is a redundant content fork of List of Pokemon.  Your counter seems to be a personal attack with weak supporting arguments of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the notability concerns in my rationale below; also it is not a content fork, as List of Pokemon contains a list of names with Pokémon, while these list articles contain blurbs with 20 Pokémon at a time. Additionally, please stop throwing around WP:NPA; accusing you of violating WP:POINT, which seems pretty clear at this point, is not a personal attack.  Artichoker [ talk ] 19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My desire to delete this article is quite genuine and not some sort of prank. My arguments from policy seem quite strong and are supported by other editors such as User:Sesu Prime whose general position on the proper coverage of Pokemon seems quite sensible.  Failing to discuss the merits of this article and resorting to ad hominem insults and insinuations instead is quite uncivil. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've been quietly doubting the need for these lists for a while. A few Pokémon are significant enough for their own articles, but what makes the rest of them notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia? I pose this scenario: if a fighting game series had, say, 50 different characters, would we dedicate multiple paragraphs to each and every one of them? I can't imagine each one would carry notability in their own right, so the answer would be "no", but that's what we're doing with Pokémon, except there aren't only 50 of them, there's nearly ten times that amount! Taking 20 non-notable characters and tossing them into a list together doesn't somehow make the list notable. And even if a list does have some notable Pokémon on it, that doesn't justify including the other, non-notable ones. Plus most of the lists are a mess in desperate need of copyediting, and they have been left that way for quite some time. Colonel Warden, I'm not sure if you're nominating this list on behalf of the other 24 lists or if there's something about this one specifically, but I say we should remove them all and just leave the few individual species articles and the basic List of Pokémon page. And Zxcvbnm, you are correct that Pokémon is a notable series, which is why we have Pokémon, Pokémon (anime), Pokémon (video game series), Pokémon (manga), etc. Just because the series as a whole is notable doesn't mean every aspect of it is notable. - sesu  PRIME  11:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Getting rid of the Pokemon (no, I will not add the é to everything) won't do anything, because someone is liable to create the articles all over again. In a list format, it's much easier to maintain, edit, and source. You can't dispute that at least some Pokemon are notable enough for their own articles, so getting rid of the rest makes no sense. Not to mention that Warden only nominated this one because he was angry and he chose it on purpose for its particular lack of sources.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Angry - why would I be angry? We note though that you are the original author of this article.  The lack of sources was there from the start as you left it in a completely unsourced state.  As there were no citations, please tell us where got the content from?  Bulbapedia or what? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Zxcvbnm, could you explain your response here a bit? I must admit it has left me a little confused - I don't think Sesu Prime was suggesting every single pokémon article be deleted. ~ Amory  (user • talk • contribs) 23:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - And I'm going to fire off a whole accusation that this entire fiasco is a case of WP:POINT on the part of Colonel Warden over the re-merging of Blastoise. The lists have received a steady amount of work on the part of myself, User:Bws2cool, User:Artichoker and several others. The reason for the separate lists has been, simply put, there is too much information to put on one megalist and the nominator has been informed of such. Requesting this nomination be closed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it was nominated, but I think we should have a serious discussion about the validity of the lists. Perhaps this particular AFD should be closed on keep and the discussion about the bigger picture continued at WT:PCP. - sesu  PRIME  11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The lists were created as a long-standing merger to keep the information, well, at least somewhere on wikipedia after it was deeemed a bad idea to have 151+ individual articles that would never proceed anywhere, let alone be of Good quality. See here for some of it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be of the mindset that this information needs to be on Wikipedia. Why is that? - sesu  PRIME  12:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at every other character list and consider the fact that while the characters aren't notable enough for individual articles, they have been repeatedly deemed notable enough for character lists. It's not a concept unique to Pokemon by any means. Also this is a strange stance coming from someone who used to go ballistic over the lack of an accented "e" in Pokemon...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I still get quite annoyed when I see Pokémon spelled incorrectly (seen my user/talk lately?), and secondly... what? How does my stance correlate to my dislike of misspellings? - sesu  PRIME  12:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to check something Sesu. No offense meant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check what? - sesu  PRIME  13:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Kung Fu Man's arguments seems to be mainly WP:ADHOM. He should please address the merits of the article rather than listing the editors involved as if this counts for something.  Per WP:OWN, such particular interests are of little consequence here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop wikilawyering, Colonel Warden.  Artichoker [ talk ] 19:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The lists are notable. As notable as character lists from any other tv series/film etc, plus there is alot of sourced information in the articleMark E (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  13:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.  --  The  left orium  13:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a valid way to keep information on this notable topic. It's basically a "list of minor characters" split into parts.  Each may not have enough notability, but the list itself does. Hobit (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As observed by User:Sesu Prime, we already have the List of Pokemon. Why do we need another list which duplicates part of this.  What is notable about #461-480 and where are the sources which demonstrate the notability of this selection, please?  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As that list is just a list and lacking content, I think having content on each makes a lot of sense. I've not checked if every list of 20 Pokemon have their own page, but given the nature of the franchise I think they should.  There is plenty of sourcing for much of these, why not "catch them all".  Same as a minor list of characters or list of D&D monsters. Hobit (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am working towards getting these lists where they need to be. This is NOT the best they can be. They are pretty easy to fix from one pharagraph to two or three. There is just so many of them, it takes a while, and I seem to be the only one doing anything about it. People like Kung Fu Man are adding sources for those "Top 5 lists" and "foo said this is their favorite Pokémon" so they will have some 3rd party sources, which is fine, but I see plenty of people reverting vandalism on the lists, but hardly any of these editors actually contribute to the lists. I made a Style guide for the lists, if anybody wants to try to help. I wrote it over a month ago, so I probably need to update it a little. --Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to have made three edits to this article - one reversion and two minor format changes. None of these edits seem to address the policy points made by the nomination nor support your claim that this article can be significantly improved.  Your style guide indicates that the main source for such articles should be Bulbapedia.  This is not a reliable source and so that guide does not conform to our core policies such as WP:V.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that I havent personally helped this article, but I have helped plenty of other articles. There are so many lists that I prefer to do the more important ones first. As for using Bulbapedia for a source, the main information I am getting from Bulbapedia could be gotten from the games or any anime summary site. I am not referencing Bulbapedia for this information. I am just getting summaries of what happened and referencing the actual episode/chapter. But this all doesn't help the fact of notability. I am just saying that the lists can be improved. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that alot of the Pokémon that I redo, they already have the Bulbapedia summaries in the article. They might be tweeked a bit, but they are still from Bulbapedia. So I am not the first one to do this. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  Reluctant Keep: What sets the Pokémon lists apart from the other series is the sheer size of it; ideally there would be one list which contains information on all 490+ species, but articles are supposed to maintain a size of around 40 KB/40 000 bytes (one byte is roughly one character, so if you check the history tab you can see the approximate size of the page). Anything above 70 000 bytes starts to become difficult to load. If all of the Pokémon lists were combined into one "megalist", it would far exceed the size recommendations; in fact, I believe that was one of the reasons for splitting the lists into groups of 20. Ordinarily I would say to redirect them all to List of Pokémon, but upon taking another look at that page it's obvious that it has no useful information whatsoever; in fact, it's far more fancrufty than any of the other lists have ever been. If any page is nominated for deletion, it should be that one. Blake has been doing a fantastic job at adding information to these lists so that they don't seem like a waste of Wikispace. I've no doubt that when he progresses to this article, it will turn out the same way. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: While each individual Pokémon may not be whole, the entire collection of them as a whole are notable enough to warrant an article listing them, however, to put the short description of all 493 of them into a single page would result in an article that you'd probably have to PgDn about 50 times to get to the end. That was the reasoning behind splitting them into groups of twenty and creating an article for each of thos groups. To nominate one means you must nominate all of them. But, yes they do have notability, even if a particular group of twenty don't seem to be as notable as others. (Bloody hell, I hate dealing with deletionists who always go by the book... Haven't they ever heard of just ignoring all the rules?)   TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 16:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge this and the other 24 "List of Pokémon (x-y)" sublists to the central List of Pokémon and trim... trim a lot. How is this any different from Naruto or One Piece, which both have spectacularly large casts of minor characters? Just because Pokémon are numbered and there is thus a clearly defined set of them doesn't somehow justify listing every single one - it's still an indiscriminate list, even with such clear inclusion criteria. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Pokémon isn't just a video game series; there's also the anime TV series, as well as the set of movies. All of these are notable. To my knowledge, the vast majority of Pokémon species have already been featured in at least one anime episode and/or at least one movie; these appearances support the notability of the entire set of Pokémon species as a whole, even though several species may not be notable enough to merit their own separate articles at this time. Also, the Pokémon lists are not intended to advise video game players on the best ways to capture a specific Pokémon and/or use it in battles. And finally, as other users have already mentioned, there is a valid reason that the coverage of all Pokémon species was divided into several pages. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the article which contains much unsourced game guide material like "Rhyperior can learn a move that no other Pokemon can - Rock Wrecker. This move is very powerful and leaves the user immobile in the next turn (similar to Hyper Beam, Giga Impact, and Frenzy Plant). As well as this, Rhyperior has a huge Attack stat and has strong Defence.". Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's information that should have been deleted, but it doesn't merit the deletion of the entire article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and trim These lists are good ways of keeping information on characters not notable on their own. However, there is wayyyyy too much unsourced cruft information on these things.  Triplestop  x3  18:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - this has been said before, but this is obviously a WP:POINT nomination by User:Colonel Warden over the merging of Blastoise. In any case, Pokémon is a notable subject, and many, many Pokémon have some real-world critical discussion on them; just not enough for an individual article (take Deoxys for example; which was used in NASA space promotion for kids)  Artichoker [ talk ] 18:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither Blastoise nor Deoxys appear in this article and none of your other comments appear to relate to this particular article. Per WP:NRVE, "it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim." Colonel Warden (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that if this article is deleted, the others would as well, to be consistent. Your comments on Blastoise and Deoxys appear unfounded. I have already asserted that the topic is notable: "many, many Pokémon have some real-world critical discussion on them; just not enough for an individual article" so the list should be kept. Next time please remember to fully read my rationale.  Artichoker [ talk ] 19:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have said nothing about this particular article. Suggesting that many Pokemon are notable is irrelevant.  The question here is whether Pokemon #461–480, as a group, are notable.  I've not seen one piece of evidence addressing this from you or any other editor.  You seem to want to keep this article on the general grounds that Pokemon and parts of it is notable but notability is not inherited and so you have to demonstrate the notability of these particular details. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep WP:POINT nomination per Artichoker. Items in a list don't need to be individually notable. The list has a clear definition and sufficiently sourced information to write a small blurb on each individual 'mon; it just happens that most of them don't warrant their own articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Very notable series, would be a mess to try to combine all the lists into one, the lists just need some fixing up as said above. Knowledgekid87) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most individual Pokémon aren't notable, the collection of them as a whole are definitely notable enough to warrant an article listing them. Ideally this means that we should have a single list, but Wikipedia has really strong guidelines about pages being too large -- editors get twapped for letting that happen. So separate sublists it is. If there are crufty sentences in the list, that's a reason to clean them up -- or better yet, get out of the way of editors who actually are doing the work, slowly, one entry at a time. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We do have a single list - List of Pokemon - and this does not seem too large. Why do we need another list covering a fraction of same ground? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Pokémon is nothing more that a collection of names of every single Pokémon, providing no content at all. If anything needs to be deleted, it should be that.  Artichoker [ talk ] 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That list is structurally superior. It provides numerous sortable columns, such as the name in differing languages, the differing numbers used for indexing and the primary game attributes.  And it is complete .  The list to be deleted, on the other hand, is not really a list at all - it's just an arbitrary anthology of non-notable articles, thrown together for no better reason than that they would be more likely deleted if left by themselves  and so huddle together for mutual protection. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Completeness is not a valid argument; please remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. List of Pokémon has absolutely no content.  Artichoker [ talk ] 22:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - see also WP:SIZERULE. Seems if everything was merged into the one giant list page we'd have a page that is far too large to be usable.  I also fail to see how this is any different from any other List of Character article, which is a very standard, long-established, and well-accepted article spinout. 76.124.70.1 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

SPEEDY SNOW KEEP per Ten Pound Hammer, the otters, the bat and the hammer.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2009 (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.