Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd 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.

In general, the reasons given in the closure of this AfD apply mutatis mutandis. Moreover, this article has additional policy problems which the "keep" opinions fail to adequately address: most content is unverifiable, sourced either to "the games and their manuals" in general or to a small number of unreliable sources. Also, its scope and subject brings it into conflict with WP:NOTGUIDE, a policy.

To the extent that a very concise summary of this content (about one paragraph) is required to adequately explain the game within the scope of an encyclopedia, it may be restored for selective merging to Pokémon or another article – as soon as reliable, specific sources are provided.  Sandstein  17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Still appears to be a "detailed" wholly in-world game guide information that really should only belong on a FAQ page. Salavat (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up - this is one of the few Pokémon game mechanics that I believe deserves its own individual article. This article does need some clean-up, as well as the removal of all original research, but I believe it exerts enough real-world notability to stay. Artichoker [ talk ]  17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In-universe game guide. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - An in-depth understanding of the elemental rock-paper-scissors is pretty superfluous; all that needs to be said is that there is such a system. Nifboy (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

*Delete and transwiki to a strategy guide Wiki of some sort — Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, none of the articles referenced establish any out–of–universe notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at worst merge- I would think there'd be enough real world information to justify the article (although I can't really do the research myself at this time). That said, if real world information limited in its availability, and cleanup removes too much for it to be a viable article on its own, then merging the relevant information with either the main pokemon article or Pokémon game mechanics would make more sense.  At any rate, I think its an encyclopedic topic. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree fully with Artichoker's comment below. I change to Merge to Pokémon game mechanics and still transwiki if needed. MuZemike (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - if the final consensus is to delete, then this article should be merged to Pokémon game mechanics and made into a redirect. Artichoker [ talk ]  17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The fans may not need this article. But the rest of us do, in order to make sense of the material. We write for the general reader, and this is not excessive detail. For example, a true article in a fan wiki should explain every instance of every type of conflict,and this just gives representative ones to explain the concepts. DGG (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Condense and merge into Pokémon game mechanics. We don't need a comprehensive table of type interactions, but it's appropriate to discuss the concept of types and how they affect each other in the context of explaining the gameplay.  Pagra shtak  18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think the table should stay. Comprehensiveness is a good thing in this case, and the table clearly shows the effectiveness of each type to one another. Ideally, if this were merged, it would become a paragraph giving a general overview of the types and then the table which explains everything else. Artichoker [ talk ]  18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain to me why a reader who will not play the games is interested in knowing the results of every possible attack combination. That table would look right at home in a game guide.  Pagra shtak  19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never played the game series, but I edit the articles and find them quite interesting to read. Until I saw this table, I never realized there were so many Pokémon types. They must have added about twelve of those later in the series. I'm only familiar with the first 151 Pokémon. Useight (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I agree with the cogent rationale provided above by . Not to mention that there are some good sources already provided in the article.  Cirt (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree as far as the sources are concerned. None of the sources are verifiable. The serebii.net and TRsRockin.com sites are basically Pokemon fansites. The review from GameFAQs seems like it's from a user and not from a staff member or any other verifiable journalist. (It has already been determined here that references to GameFAQs should only be used for release data.) MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MuZemike is right—the references in the article come from two places: serebii.net and trsrockin, both of which are fan sites. The sourcing in this article is very weak.  Pagra shtak  02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - not an appropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE. Asserts no notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - a necessary and helpful support article for the other Pokémon articles. It's no good having explain all this stuff over and over again in all the other Pokémon articles.  Let's just keep this article so the others can link to it.  Original research can be fixed.  The article shouldn't be deleted because of OR that you can just clean up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunDragon34 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful for those of us that don't speak Pokemon and acts as a well to not replicate information across many articles. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the nominator's concerns. The nominator believes this information is not suitable for Wikipedia, and thus would not need to be replicated across articles in the first place. In any event, wouldn't Pokémon game mechanics serve as such a "well"?  Pagra shtak  18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the article must be merged, then yes, Pokémon game mechanics usually serves as the "well" for most merged information about Pokémon. Artichoker [ talk ]  19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A game guide, written from an in-universe perspective, based in many parts on original research. Edison (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This game guide/continuity guide can be consigned to history. The fact that some people find them interesting is nice, but there are other projects for this sort of thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Pokemon types are one of the franchise's core concepts, almost as important as Pokemon battles themselves, as it determines what can and can't happen in a battle. Condensing it into a single paragraph on the Pokemon game mechanics page won't do much good, considering how diverse types are. This is a complicated concept that deserves its own article. Some other concepts are simpler and can be condensed, but not this one. Condensing it can potentially confuse the general reader, as they may not know enough about types to understand the properties of Ice or Normal type Pokemon, to name a few. (Iuio (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
 * If users want more in-depth information on how Pokemon game mechanics work, that is what Wikia, StrategyWiki, Bulbapedia, etc. are for. Wikipedia is not a game guide; this is made clear in WP:NOTGUIDE. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude Le Grand Roi but you quote that Five Pillars thing in every AFD related to cruft, in the exact same format. I feel that you may be trying to increase the amounts of keeps on the page? Salavat (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Le Grand Roi: as found in the essay WP:JNN, with which I think you are familiar, stating keep due to notability is not helpful if you do not also explain why it is notable. As it stands, your keep statement does nothing to help me gauge if I need to reconsider my stance.  Pagra shtak  05:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, IMO the article could be summed up: Pokemon types are special attributes that all pokemon have and can prove to be a strength or weakness when in battle with another pokemon. These types also apply to the various moves which pokemon have, eg pickachu might have an electric type move. In the anime series the strength and weaknesses are also evident, however not always do the follow "rules", these rules do differ from game to anime, but are mostly similar. To create a balance each move has its weaknesses and strengths, with all of this creating a balanced gameplay within the games. Although maybe something a bit more thought out in regards to wording, this sorta thing doesnt need to go into depth. Salavat (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, warrants an article as an important aspect of a highly notable topic. Everyking (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it notable? Are there any verifiable, third-party sources you can reference to prove its notability? MuZemike (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: not notable because it is lacking reliable third-party sources with significant coverage of these game items. Also violates WP:VGSCOPE that presumes we don't need a list of all the items in a game series, which still comes back to notability. Randomran (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why delete? This page is full of facts, play the games yourselves and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.144.59 (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As found in the essay WP:JNN, stating delete due to non-notability is not helpful. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to keep. The facts must be backed up with verifiable, third-party sources, which there are none. MuZemike (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to delete due to the existence of verifiable reliable sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Le Grand Roi, I don't think it's fair for you to point editors to that essay when your own keep statement was contrary to the very same section.  Pagra shtak  20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I did state why this is non-notable: the lack of sources. You're the one who stated "this is notable" without any sources to back it up. Randomran (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pokemon has sources all over the place. If not, we wouldn't be on a third AfD.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Prove it. WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obvious. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Because the Pokémon Wikiproject has been struggling with sourcing issues for years now. If it's obvious to you how these articles could be sourced, perhaps you could let us in on it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I keep thinking of the whole "see what happens when Snoop Dog gets a hold of the discussion". -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And this addresses my question how? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide, which is what a considerable amount of information in this article is. While this could (and probably was, in the last few AfD's) be considered purely an editorial issue, I don't think it can be in this case.  Or at least, it shouldn't be.  Approximately 80% of the article content is information on how to better play the handheld or card game.  No reliable, published sources independent from the game manufacturer are cited, meaning this article does not meet WP:GNG.  Game manuals don't count.  Self published websites don't count.  Pokemon wikis don't count.  Also (as a purely editorial manner), some OR has cropped up in the current version, I'll see if I can't get rid of it). Protonk (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge content to a more generic article on pokemon, specifically expanding Pokémon game mechanics; there is no reason that a simple list with a one sentence qualifier for each type could be used to explain a general classification of the types. However, the weak vs strong table and the like should definitely be nixed.  Redirects for things like Grass-type Pokemon (a reasonably valid search term) can be pointed to the merge target. --M ASEM  15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Protonk's well-reasoned, solid argument. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem to be very fond of pointing to that essay, even though you haven't read it yourself, apparently. From the WP:VAGUEWAVE section: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above." How do you expect others to follow the advice of that essay if you do not do so yourself? You seem to be very keen on replying to delete statements, yet you offer no explanation for this.  Pagra shtak  19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense tells me that Pokemon is notable, editors and readers are interested in it, information on it can be verified by any reasonable standard. I see no satisfactory weekend why this has to go to a third AfD.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a reply to me? Did you even read what I wrote?  Pagra shtak  19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:50, 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.