Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon items (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete for the same reasons as in Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination) (serious WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:N problems not adequately addressed by keep opinions, restoration for very selective merger possible if sourced).  Sandstein  18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Pokémon items
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apears to be wholly in-world game guide information that really should only belong on a FAQ page Salavat (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Reyk  YO!  05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Not what Wikipedia is for. If Wikipedia did keep any of this, it should be on the Pokemon page and the list should be limited to important/interesting items. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a merge target for Poké Ball and Pokédex, which barely meet notability for their own article, but which should probably be mentioned somewhere. Merging would help all three articles. – sgeureka t•c 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a merge target for articles that probably should have been deleted. As for SGE's suggestion, Poké Ball can be upmerged to Pokémon, as it's core to understanding but very simple to explain, and Pokédex requires such little explanation (talking electronic Pokémon encyclopedia) that it can be simply explained on first mention wherever we're linking it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Pokémon game mechanics, and the same should happen with Poké Ball, Pokédex, Pokémon Center and Pokémon moves. Artichoker [ talk ]  14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You can't just say "it's notable". You have to demonstrate it with reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as per the WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't think aspects of Pokemon are notable? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you or I think. Anyone can see an article with zero reliable independent secondary sources, which means this article fails our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see it passes that guideline by covering a notable and verifiable topic. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would also like to point out that this article is technically not a list, but rather a general description of the various types of items in the Pokémon universe, and, if kept, should probably be renamed to Pokémon items. Artichoker [ talk ]  16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki to a strategy guide Wiki of some sort for the same reason described on Pokemon types. MuZemike (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It supports other Pokémon pages by providing a single article to link to for any Pokémon item. That way, not every single article has to describe every item in its body; you can just link to this list, so it helps to keep the articles' prose clean and concise.  SunDragon34 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Article fails to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY through reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as per the WP:GNG. Also fails the WP:VGSCOPE presumption that game items generally don't belong in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked. It's unfixable because it's completely non-notable. So delete it. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did you check? And it's obviously not non-notable otherwise it would not have survived an earlier AfD.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This was re-nominated after a no-consensus keep, because no sources have been produced to establish the notability that past editors have claimed. Find the sources, or let it go. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no pressing need to delete this article that is clearly important to members of our community. The various aspects of this list appear in published sources.  For more on Pokeballs, see .  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With all of those great sources, you should help source the article, LGRdC. That would really give everyone reason not to delete. Artichoker [ talk ]  19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll start doing so. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far, if I get time I'll try to scrounge up some sources too. Artichoker [ talk ]  19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This sort of combination is the preferred method of doing things. Acceptingit as a compromise would save a lot of arguments. DGG (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If this were the preferred method, it would be supported by our policy and guidelines. Our policies suggest this article should be deleted: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That's the compromise. Randomran (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, if such sources don't exist, but that doesn't seem to be the case. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no third party sources. Only second party guides authorized by Nintendo. Randomran (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true: from Code Red in the Boardroom: Crisis Management as Organizational DNA - Page 2 by W. Timothy Coombs - Business & Economics - 2006 - 137 pages: "On December, Burger King announced the recall of the Poke Balls. The recall effort included full-page advertisements in USA Today." -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be useful for an entirely different article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you believe any content from this atricle can be merged, I would of course not oppose your doing so. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think the entire Poké Ball article should be merged here. Artichoker [ talk ]  20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The content of this article is irredeemably unencyclopedic. If Poké Ball were merged here, then this article would have to be cut down to the bare minimum about that, then upmerged AGAIN anyway. If anyone has any arguments pertaining to the subject of this article, but please don't sidetrack an attempt to remove some horrible content by suggesting that we merge some other, slightly less horrible content here, because it doesn't fix the problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please note WP:UNENCYC, as aspects of Pokemon are indeed encyclopedic. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That book on amazon is an unofficial encyclopedia, which sounds to me "fan book", just because its got the word encyclopedia on it doesnt mean its within the scope of a real encyclopedia Salavat (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The key is that it's an independent, second party source. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO you could sum this article up by removing the guide like stuff into something like this: The Pokémon games, anime, and manga have a variety of items unique to their fictional world. Many toy companies have made replicas of these items, such as life-sized Poké Balls and Pokédexes. Within pokemon items are litterly classed into specific groups such as "assisting items" where they can aid a pokemon in areas such as healing or protection of some kind. "Enhancement items" which can improve the pokemons overall power of abilities. "General purpose tools", items which aid the main character through the world of pokemon. "Key Items", items which play a major role within the games. Items such as the Pokeball (an item used for catching pokemon) and pokedex (item to help identify pokemon) have proved most popular and have been since made into toys.. In other words a mentioning berries and then berry related items seems hardly necessary compared to "In pokemon many items have been created to help aid the pokemon health and battle performance". Salavat (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment on sourcing. The unofficial encyclopedia appears to be published at an extrememly low volume.  A google search for the publisher turns up the amazon page for the pokemon book as the top hit.  As for the "official" encyclopedia, we can come back to the bionicle debate about this, but how independent you feel that is boils down to how discriminating you feel Scholastic Inc. is in choosing to publish a work for hire.  the rest of the sources are not independent from the game-maker in any significant way.  DGG has a point above about the navigational value of lists and the possiblity that we might bend WP:N in order to keep a list that housed information useful to expanding knowledge about the subject but unhelpful in individual articles.  While I have agreed with that point in the past I am inclined to apply it only very narrowly.  This may be one of those points, assuming that the list was shortened considerably and the WP:GAMEGUIDE content removed. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect/Merge (i.e. I don't care what happens to the history, but an article here isn't necessary): Salavat and AMiB have succinctly described everything that really needs to be known about this topic and its assorted subtopics, and it fits in about two paragraphs. Nifboy (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Sure, this is a secondary source. However, I believe a few editors here are skipping right over a very important word from Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." That source is not "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination. If we have this much trouble finding appropriate sources for Poké Ball (a separate article), this article is looking pretty bleak.  Pagra shtak  04:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Protonk (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOREASON. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WHYDONTYOUREADMYCOMMENTTHATISLIKETWOLINESUPTHATOUTLINESACLEARANDCOGENTREASONFORDELETIONSERIOUSLY. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You should have instead replaced "comment" there with "delete" above rather than add the delete on a separate line. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * you should have just let it slide instead of lecturing me. If you think I'm not working up to your standard at AfD's, then please make a comment on my talk page.  I will remind you that I've asked you to not lecture me before.  others have asked you not to link WP:AADD to every response that you feel isn't up to snuff. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestions are not lectures and in discussions we interact. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have a suggestion.  Unless it is absolutely necessary or realistically two way (as in you have a question or want clarification), please refrain from responding to my posts in AfD. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't happen to comment immediately after me in DRVs I start or when I argue in AfDs, then sure. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ok. going to the talk page. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, warrants an article as an important aspect of a highly notable topic. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You just said the exact same thing on the other pokemon discussion, without veryifying your argument. The fact that this list is related to pokemon doesnt mean the list itself is notable. Salavat (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - not an appropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE, fails WP:NOT. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 23:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment This article is linked to in (by my count) 106 mainspace articles and 119 project pages. Quoting WP:OSTRICH: "If the context seems unfamiliar or non-notable, consider first whether the article or list is a necessary fork of a larger main article or series of lists. Think about whether deletion of the sub-topic would disrupt the overall cohesiveness of the main topic." Again, I think that, while some believe this article's individual notability is unverified, it supports the other articles in its topic and, therefore, should not be deleted. SunDragon34 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge/Elaborate Clear it up, merge it to a fuller Pokémon item-related article (I suggest Pokémon game mechanics, it has an incomplete item section), or actually finish it! Micro01 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pokemon is more than just a game. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is only about the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we could/should expand it accordingly. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With both items from the animé, game, and manga; there are obvious exclusives. Micro01 (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Such as? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OSTRICH is an inaccurate essay. That's why we have guidelines like WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Even so, I don't think this disrupts the cohesiveness of other Pokemon articles since this goes into unnecessary detail as per WP:VGSCOPE. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and should be deleted.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (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.