Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (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 keep and cleanup to remove original reasearch. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 01:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon types

 * — (View AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion in October 2006 (see Articles for deletion/Pokémon types). It was closed as "no consensus whether to delete or merge", but very much not a 'keep'. Not a single jot of this has been merged. Three months is enough time, and so I am re-nominating it for deletion. As the prior nomination stated, this article/game guide is entirely original research and violates Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOT, which explicitly states that Wikipedia is not a venue for game guide information. No real-world perspective, at all, way too detailed for 'aiding understanding', utter fancruft. Please don't recommend merging with Pokemon game mechanics - that article is already oversized and has sufficient information of this type already; plus, merging in unreferenced original research is a Very Bad Idea. Strong delete this. Proto :: ►  10:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but nuke everything that is original research, keep all that is supported by the games only.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 10:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would leave nothing. The only stuff supported by the game is the most basic facts, which exist in the main Pokemon article and Pokemon Game Mechanics and the individual articles on each and every Pokemon etc etc already.   Proto ::  ►  10:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete A game guide, and completely lacking independent sources. Edison 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I regret not being able to discuss this article the first time it came around for AFD because many of the "votes" made there were not supported by any arguements and didn't add anything constructive to the conversation. First point, WP:OR, while I will personally apologize for the lack of resources (i've been editing this and related articles lately and been lazy), their absence does not automatically make this OR, most of the information is able to be used from the video games themselves and from their respective instruction manuals.  The parts I would concede to removing would be things like, "Ground-type Pokémon are tough Pokémon affiliated with the soil."  This amounts to something that has to be analyzed from reading a wealth of Pokedex information and does constitute OR.  However, listing examples is purely descriptive and easily verifiable.  As for the non-list info:
 * Physical and Special Attack (instruction manual)
 * List of types in relation to Phys/Special (serebii.net)
 * Pokemon types and damage multipliers (video games, serebii.net)
 * Imabalance in early gameplay (video games, anime, instruction manuals)
 * Differences between the anime and game (video games, anime, instruction manuals)
 * Please re-read WP:NOT carefully and realize that wikipedia is not a place for instruction. Where in the article is anyone being told "how to-do" anything?  This article exists seperately because the information is too exetensive to appropritely contain within another article (i.e. too big and therefore distracting).  IMO, there seems to exist a double-standard, have you ever looked at Monopoly?  Or how about the vast variety of Category:Chess openings?  And I'm sure you're aware of the example at wikimedia that talks about rules and strategies of poker.  The point is that it's fine to discuss the details of a game as long as someone has done it before.  Editors are just not allowed to give advice, instruction, or thier own opinions (OR).
 * Now on to sources (sorry this is so long, but it appears you need a thorough response or i don't have a WP:SNOW). Both Edison and Proto have now probably realized that this article is sourcable.  But there undoubtedly remains some reservations about my sources and whether they follow WP:RS.  Firstly, to Edison, primary sources are perfectly suitable for describing, which is almost all this article does, so complaining of a lack of them is irrelevant, especially when it's about a game.  Secondly, one may notice my use of serebii as a RS.  While fansites are generally discouraged I have yet to find a policy that forbids them.  And this particular site meets the requirements laid out at WP:RS. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added references, but I'm not sure how you'd like me to do the references it makes to the anime. Would it be better to add refs for each episode it's refering to? or is a wikilink to the list of episodes with an episode number going to be sufficient? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If we were debating the keeping of a book, a church, a professor, a choral group, an artist, or a shopping mall, the citing of fan websites would not count for much with respect to reliable independent sources, and the citing of game guides from the company or the instruction manual for a game would not count much for independent sources or for notability. Observations from looking or playing the game are clearly original research. People are always saying "If we have all those Pokemon articles, why can't we keep this article" with respect to articles with way better sources than these. Why should computer game or video game characters/weapons/equipment/tactics get a pass from notability, verifiability, and reliable sources on the basis of ILIKEIT? Edison 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason that fansites don't tend to count for much is because they are not stable, are not not subject to independent fact-checking, do not declare their source of information, are error-prone, and often-times uncorroborated. However, none of these apply to serebii.net.  They are a reputable site within the pokemon community and considered reliable in their source information.  Nintendo, by nature, does not tend to divulge information or talk about it's products in more than commercializing manners.  And what does the source have to do with notability? You lost me on that one.  Observations do not qualify as original research. From WP:OR:
 * An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following -
 * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * It introduces original ideas;
 * It defines new terms;
 * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source


 * From WP:RS:
 * Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic.
 * As you can hopefully see, my arguments are based on the policies, not on these strawmen that you've propped up, like ILIKEIT and the WP:Pokémon test. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that the physical/special attacks of Pokemon (probably in the individual articles too), list of types in relation to Phys/Special, the types and damage multiplier is solely of use to those who are playing the game (and it's in their manuals anyway) is very much game guide information. The imbalance in early gameplay? That sounds like original research based on assumptions from playing the game (please correct me if I am wrong). And the differences between the anime and the game is information already covered in sufficient depth at the parent article, Pokemon. Proto ::  ►  19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, so what use are things like Chess openings, and the cost of the Pennsylvania Railroad to people who will never play the game? What use is knowing exactly how many floors the Empire State Building has if I'm never going to go there?  Isn't it enough to say it's really tall?  Or what use is reading about Poker strategy if i'm never going to play?  Jimmy said we can have that... but not a simple breakdown of Pokemon types?  It's been written about, so it can be included.  And FYI, phys/special breakdown and damage multipliers are not included in the game manuals. That's why they needed to be referenced.  Again, WP:NOT isn't about who the article will ultimately appeal to (many of the advanced mathematics categories are much to technical for the "general audience"), game-guide is about instruction and advice.  If i was to write that players should use Donphan against a Raichu because it's immune to electrical attacks, that would be game guide. You say that the differences between the anime and games is covered in the main article.  Where?  There is nothing that deals with the specific point that the anime treats types much more loosely, often even ignoring some of the basic principles.  Nor is there the discussion of physical.special breakdown, and how it has changed since Diamond/Pearl.  This small bit of info is discussed at Game mechanics, but as argued before, to include the amount of info deserving of the topic would grossly imbalance the article and distract, like Kyaa has humurously pointed out. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 17:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep article could use some cleanup but I agree with ΖαππερΝαππερ that the material is verifiable and not a howto. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge/smerge into Pokémon game mechanics. Most of the Pokemon types article clearly is a game guide. --- RockMFR 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * where specifically is there an instruction given? -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into Polkamon game mechanics (typo intended for humor). Or keep, since it appears to have been forked out of that page in the first place due to size considerations. Kyaa the Catlord 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge but only after nixing all the original research scattered throughout the article. Overall I think the information is useful, but can be merged. Gan  fon  22:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, especially the matchup chart, but eliminate FAQ-y content. Too big to merge into what is a fairly long article already. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kill for the love of God. If there's anything worth putting in a pokemon article put it in there. Jcuk 23:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, mostly per Zappernapper's arguments; there is plenty in the article that is worth keeping. I'm particularly fond of the Imbalance in early gameplay section, which has some interesting history about the Psychic, Ghost, and Bug types.  I'm not too fond of all the lists of strengths, weaknesses, etc., that appear in each type's section, though; the table does a nice enough job of that in a much simpler fashion.  More references are needed, but as Zappernapper said, lack of references doesn't automatically mean there is OR&mdash;but there will need to be more references for most of the claims in the article.  --Brandon Dilbeck 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather say delete per Proto (nominator). Big  top  23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above, but rm the original research. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete sections 2,3,4 Keep THe rest. I am pretty sure it can be confirmed by the game guides that help people i the game. The Placebo Effect 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete sections 2, 3, and 4?? But that would leave only a big list of types!  --Brandon Dilbeck 03:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We could still leave an introduction and a short summery of how the types figure in to the game. Just condence the first three sections into one. Joiz A|A. Shmo 06:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per The Placebo Effect. Joiz A|A. Shmo 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As has been said, this is clearly to extend the Pokemon Game Dynamics. It shouldn't be deleted on purposes of OR because this is how the game type system works. It is useful information, but content on the page that are opinions should be deleted. Otherwise, it stands to be a valid article of information of how the Pokemon types interact with each other - not a game guide (there are parts that read like a game guide and should be deleted). Why don't we go around and nominate ALL the subsections in Pokemon Game Dynamics then as they are the same kind of article as this one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.120.157 (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Neier 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pokémon game mechanics was created so that game information didn't clutter up Pokémon. The types are an important aspect of Pokémon that would be given too little coverage merged in. The 17x3 = 51 types need a separate article. TRK tv t c e 03:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you multiply the number of types by three? --Brandon Dilbeck 20:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 89.120.193.125 18:34, 15 January 2007 (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.