Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon by species


 * 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 a consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 15:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Pokémon by species
Wholly unencyclopedic trivia. We already have List of Pokémon by name (as well as several other lists at List of Pokémon, so we really don't need the "species" (which is never mentioned outside the info screen in the games) in list form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep If it's mention on info screens in games only (I think it is mentioned on trading cards as well) it's verifiable. Regardless of how much I despise Pokemon, I can understand why someone would want to search them by species. It fits all the criteria for a list. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me place this in context. The games list the species of each Pokémon, on a little-used "info" screen that also lists such trivia as weight, height, and color. It's not exactly an important fact in the games. In terms of importance, this is more like List of Pokémon by weight or List of Pokémon by color; trivia of little interest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I expect someone will make List of Pokémon by longevity soon. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that Pokemon by weight is not that useful, but think of how people look for information. Color and species are useful ways of sorting Pokemon. - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they're really not, speaking as someone who has spent dozens of hours working on Pokémon articles. It's not something that game players, anime fans, or manga readers ever really need or benefit from knowing, nor are the "species" names often referenced in any of those. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I am not convinced that this information needs its own page. As long as each page contains the species and links to the other conspecific Pokémon why do we need a central list which is just species names and internal links? Eluchil404 10:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is verfiable, and the article has been here since 2004, many editors have contributed to it.  Dionyseus 10:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable, complete and provides a signifantly different categorization than the list by name. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT per nom., listcruft Ste4k 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:NOT does this violate? - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At a guess, Ste4k is probably thinking of "an indiscriminate collection of information"; it's the one most people have in mind when arguing for the deletion of a list. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasons stated by nom, each pokemon article appear to have their own category type anyway, so a list isn't needed.-- Andeh 10:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pokemon must be considered a large and major universe, so various navigational lists there are justified. This list is not arbitrary, and could be useful for people who want to find what they're looking for. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- TheFarix (Talk) 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fairly crufty list categorised by utterly trivial and irrelevant criteria. -- GWO
 * Delete, one list of Pokemon is sufficient. Proto ::  type  15:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficiently notable, and I don't think that "species" in regard to pokemon characters is irrelevant AdamBiswanger1 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, makes sense with information given in the games and can be verified. --GUTTERTAHAH 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NN Pokécruft. Mystache 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, is an excellent example of several things Wikipedia is not. Way too many pokemon lists already, and deleting this is a great start. Thank you A Man In Black for nominating this and helping to clean up Wikipedia. Recury 16:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Happy joy more NN Pokécruft. Whispering 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per MacGyverMagic. --M e rovingian (T, C, @) 16:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, just...no. All a species is, apparently, is the evolutionary course of a Pokemon. Redundant and crufty. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete gamecruft, unencyclopedic, and violates WP:NOT, specifically the bit about Wikipedia not being an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an especially redundant article, as there is already a category   hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 18:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not nearly as bad as the color list, but from the article and personal experience species has absolutely no bearing on gameplay, and I think such lists should only exist if they do. Confine it to the individual pokémon pages. BryanG(talk) 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete gamecruft, unencyclopedic, and violates WP:NOT--Nick Y. 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic, category would be more than is needed. - Wickning1 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. List cruft uneeded, death to pokemons. Zos 20:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this were a list of pokemon by some useful criterion like what real-life species they resemble, it might be useful; I can imagine someone wanting to find "that one that looks like an owl". (Similarly, the colour list could be useful as a way of identifying a pokemon.) But more than half the pokemon seem to have unique and arbitrary species like "longevity pokemon" or "thrust pokemon" that are not actually a useful way of categorising the creatures. So this does not appear to be the kind of list that is going to help people find information, and as such there is no reason to keep it. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is essentially the point I was making. The species groups aren't actually used for anything in the games, anime, or manga. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Bwithh 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as much Pokemon as possible, and transwiki anything possible to any existing Pokemon wiki. 132.205.45.148 22:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I agree this is not needed. Davidpdx 23:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete cruft Jaranda wat's sup 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete close competitor with webcomics for the title of most overrepresented sampling from the cruftpile. Opabinia regalis 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Not necessary in the general sense of Pokemon; it is already mentioned on pages and/or categories. &mdash; Deckill e r 00:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Listcruft. Do we need to cross reference pokemon on every measurable criteria? Eye color, number of limbs, cuteness... Stop the madness. --Xrblsnggt 02:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fancruft. -- Hoary 07:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete quite frankly we only need one pokémon-list, and that's list of Pokémon by name. -- E ivindt@c 09:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep its called a disambiguation page, just add Disambig and it should be fine, cheers M   inun    (Spiderman)  20:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment everyone who uses this page for any special kind of use should creat a copy in their userspace for safekeeping, take this for example, cheers M   inun    (Spiderman)  21:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I have no problem with List of Pokémon but agree with the nominator that this is redundant in comparison. Case in point: when 4Kids referred to Hitmonchan as a "punching type" in one episode, a number of people thought it was screw-up.  And it would make more sense just to say "Hitmonchan" as it is one of the 215 Pokémon to have a unique species.  You can expect that number will rise after Diamond and Pearl are released in Japan at the end of September. --Sonic Mew 23:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Long, pointless cruft.-- A c1983fan(yell at me) 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Holy Cruftastic Content, Batman!! -- MrDolomite | Talk 20:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I never wanted to know that Pokemon have species, and now I do. What a waste ! Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:14, 18 July 2006 (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.