Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon moves


 * 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   SPEEDIED AS G4. We've had this discussion already. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Pokémon moves

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

This article violates WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:VGSCOPE in being a guidebook for video game manuevers. The notability is also in question as there are no independent third-party references to demonstrate notability. I do not think there is any worthwhile content to be merged into another article as all of this is game guide material and should be transikied to a more appropriate place and deleted. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy | T | 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete looks like a game guide. Hobit (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure game guide belongs on a site such as GameFAQs and is to in-world to be exceptable on an encyclopedia. Salavat (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. No independent sources establish notability and none of the content is outside the scope of a gameguide. Protonk (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and above. Too specific and non-notable. Jезка  (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Sonuvafitch (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per my original prod.  Pagra shtak  16:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — Not notable, no verifiable sources (both sources are from fansites), and is definitely strategy-guide material. MuZemike (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable in my opinion. The game exists, and thus this whole thing is verifiable.  Doesn't meet WP:N and is a gameguide however.  Hobit (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the verifiability standard requires third-party sources. So this fails that too, because existence is not enough. The article has no sources that meet WP:V or WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep per WP:PERNOM and unquestionable notability and verifiability per our guidelines and policies, i.e. existence of reliable sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and move to gaming wiki (if possible). Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and that's exactly what this is. It's not encyclopedic in the slightest, however I could see the strong value of this on a gaming wiki. -- .: Alex  :.  18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - textbook failure of WP:NOT, WP:VGSCOPE. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obvious failure of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Due to complete lack of sources. Fails notability and verifiability standards because there are no reliable, third-party sources for this article. Randomran (talk) 19:48, 21 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.