Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon by type


 * 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 of the debate was delete.  Sango  123    (e)  22:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Pokémon by type
Wholly redundant with Category:Pokémon species by type. This list doesn't have much context, and cannot have much context. If anyone is worried about its utility as a list of Pokémon: don't worry, we have about a half-dozen more lists of Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as much as it irritates me, I really think that this list will be valuable to many readers. - Richardcavell 23:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How? What purpose does it serve that Category:Pokémon species by type doesn't? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The Category format is much more easily navigated as well, if one was so-inclined.  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I know cross-namespace redirects are frowned on, but someone doing research who has only a passing knowledge of Wikipedia may not be able to find the categories otherwise. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about redirecting to List of Pokémon and mentioning Category:Pokémon species by type on that dab page? That way there's no cross-space redirect, but readers can still be directed there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't do anything a category can't do. Dr Zak 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I say that we keep it. The other article is very hard to navigate for those of the Wikigoers running on dial-up. Please, tell me why the other article is better than the list by type? Master Mew 23:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? How so? Dr Zak 23:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't you see? On the Lise of Pokémon by Species, or whatever, you have to kepp on clicking and clicking, which is annoying on dial up. On the other page, everything is gathered into one, AND, if someone is looking for a specific Pokémon, you could just press Crtl+F and type in the word. See how much easier the other page (by type) is than by Species? For practically everyone? Master Mew 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone is looking for the types of a specific Pokémon, that person can go to the Pokémon's page. If someone is looking for all of the Pokémon of a certain type, that person can go to the appropriate category page. Neither arrangement allows for simple crossreferencing of dual-types. - A Man In Bl♟ck  (conspire | past ops) 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihonjo e  02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  02:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete: The already existing category serves this purpose much better than the list. --Hetar 02:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; redundant to the category. It's somewhat annoying when one needs a specific piece of information and the first half-dozen search results are all lists that would have worked equally well as categories.  ergot 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Serves no purpose that Category:Pokémon species by type. doesn't. Also inappropriate as an article and more appropriate as a category, clearly inferior to the category based on it.--XenoN e on (converse) 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this should be a category. Vashti 11:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Vizjim 14:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sandstein 16:39, 21 May 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.