Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Moon


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pokémon Moon

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

Non-notable internet game. Speedy declined. TexasAndroid (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Unnotable fan made game, violates notability guidelines, and possibly COI. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Greg Tyler (t &bull; c) 10:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unnotable, and somewhat illegal. Ansh666 (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the now-defunct Pokemon test applies to this. Kind of because it's also Pokemon-related, but also because there could be a list of these somewhere (e.g. the Pokemon games for PC page). Ansh666 (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 04:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that this should be deleted BECAUSE, it is consistently being vandalised, blanked and people are using it to advertise. So it should be protected? Wouldn't you agree? After all, it is very informative (other Pokemon articles should be written on the other online games) and I found it helpful. After all, there IS an article on Pokemon PC games.

IF it was advertising, there should be NO pokemon articles at all: wouldn't that be advertising for NINTENDO? Having a Wikipedia article for WIKIPEDIA would be advertising as well? It's not spam! Pokemon fans would come onto Wikipedia for the whole point of learning about Pokemon, not to listen to ridiculous ads. It's about US not THEM! And I see that BEFORE the vandalism, someone actually marked this article not as spam.

Again, if another more “important” article was vandalised, would that be deleted? Are we saying that less important articles don’t matter? No, and according to Wikipedia’s policy just because vandals damaged an article, it shouldn’t be marked for deletion!

Should we think that the creator of this article is a spammer because someone ELSE came on and linked it to a fraud website? Absolutely no. As the community of Wikipedia, we should support our user community, and not be swayed by the careless actions of others interested in only their own benefit. Let’s be a team and stop that vandalism!

By That Anonymouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.34.123 (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pokémon_Moon&action=history We can see here: Shadowjams- requests for speedy deletion Graeme Bartlett- Cleans and not spam IP 117.194.4.239 vandalises this article Tpewebmaster vandalises this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokémon_games_for_PC Article for Pokemon Mmos Therefore they are NOTABLE, but they have taken vandalism precautions (because we can see that 117.194.4.239 spammed AGAIN and afterwards they prevented vandalism). PLUS "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks." So not spam


 * Keep Being illegal or a COI is not a reason to delete. However I found a lot of Google hits on many different web sites including game review places.  This suggests that it is notable enough to have an article here. I declined deleting it as a spam, and considered that more debate was needed before eliminating because of lack of notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Completely non-notable. It is a Pokémon MMORPG. If we let this slide, then alot more will be made. Most of which will be made by some sort of staff member of the project. Which is against guidelines. --Blake (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - possibly under Speedy A7 - web content with no indication of importance. Web search for "Pokémon Moon" shows a mire of forum and blog chatter. Perhaps Graeme can link to some of the reviews that he found. Otherwise, I can't see any indication of it passing the general notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete – I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can display any notability of this MMO. I'm not even going to address the fundamentally-flawed argument above, as no-one here even mentioned spam as a reason for deletion (However, I do agree with Graeme Bartlett's reason for declining the speedy). MuZemike 17:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reliable sources as stated above. On another note, vandalism is not a valid reason to delete an article unless there are no non-vandalous edits in the edit history. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails pretty much every test at WP:N and, as stated, vandalism is evidence of vandalism, not notability. ~ Amory (talk) 04:28, 7 June 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.