Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porygon evolutionary line


 * 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. I think discussing this through the Pokemon project page might be more fruitful. Neil ( ► ) 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Porygon evolutionary line

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pointless page when these Pokémon all have their own pages. Cipher (Talk to the hand) 13:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same layout and format as the Porygon article, and are just as unnecessary:


 * Strongly deleteThese articles lack a proper introduction, a proper picture at the top, the information from other articles is not being merged properly and above all, they try to show that evolution of a Pokemon is more important than that Pokemon itself, which is totally wrong. Their sections contain all information about various Pokemon but that is not related to the remaining content. Vikrant Phadkay 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep These pages are part of an on-going merger project at Wikiproject Pokémon. The reason for this merger is that the individual articles for each Pokémon rely too much on unreliable sources and original research.  Please give this merger time, as combining hundreds of Pokémon pages is not a small project.  Bhamv 15:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep to allow the project time to complete the merger. Revisit the issue after a month or so and if no satisfactory progress has been made, consider relisting.  Ark yan  • (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 15 and the actual talk page - there is discussion going on, and this AfD appears to be premature (as in, nom didn't bother to read the discussions). Give them time to work it out. -Jeske (v^_^v) 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment since my keep rationale wouldn't add anything to the conversation i'm merely going to post a link to WP:PCP/Layout for people wanting more information on the merge in general. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Close as this is part of a concerted effort to collect numerous pokemon articles into fewer places, I don't feel that AFD is the appropriate place to discuss it. Participation in the ongoing discussion, or opening up an RFC would be my suggested route.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. They add nothing to Wikipedia not covered elsewhere. Relation to a Project is irrelevant, pages must stand or fall on their own merits. - fchd 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, as the intent is to remove the coverage elsewhere, with a different organizational scheme. Ignorance, or even dismissal of this is a hindrance to developing consensus.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I still think a single list/table of all Pokemon should suffice, but am not stupid enough to realise that such a notion would ever get anywhere. - fchd 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Edison 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The nominator's rationale holds no water. It states that these articles should not survive because other pages exist with this information. Once all merged pages are complete, 491 of the current 493 Pokemon creature articles will become redirects, effectively nullifying the reason for deletion. The single creature pages whose information has been merged are only currently up for the sake of consistency.  You Can '  t See Me!  18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? You are going to merge so many notable articles with non-notable ones seeing no signs of development? Ridiculous! The world's largest encyclopedia must not bend down before behavior that is as childish as puffing in a Game Boy cartridge, taking it to be a mouth organ! Vikrant Phadkay 09:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the articles are not notable. In their whole existence on Wikipedia, there have not been any sources that allow them to pass WP:NOTABILITY. --Teggles 11:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment: To avoid any further confusion after this point, I will begin to redirect the creature articles into completed merged pages as soon as this discussion draws to a close.  You Can '  t See Me!  02:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * comment please don't. i don't think this many articles should have been created in the first place, as content&layout have not really been figured out yet. it should be sufficient to add an invisible comment to the top of each article, directing the person to view the talk page regarding the last AFD (this one) before nominating it again. that should be enough to dissuade most people who are only nominating because they weren't aware of the merger. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 12:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note very well, merger experts!We are having many important articles that have a lot of content. Unimportant ones, like Ivysaur and Crawdaunt also do. Merging will make them overly long and many articles will lose out their important content. Finally, many merged articles would be proposed for splitting. And also, merging will not remove the so-called sources problem. Vikrant Phadkay 15:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Crawdaunt's article is rather short once all of the filler information in the middle is gone. Almost the entirity of its "In the Video Games" section is gameguide. Ivysaur also has quite a bit of gameguide, and its "In the Anime" section is slightly inflated with filler content. Before you mention anything about the sources in those two articles, an unhealthy load of the facts are sourced to fansites such as Serebii and Psypoke. Citing unreliable sources is no more of a fix to the sourcing problem than is a merge. In fact, the merge actually helps by eliminating that sort of filler content while still keeping a healthily-sized article, getting rid of a large amount of unsourceable material.  You Can '  t See Me!  18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are severely narrow-minded if you think that some descriptions about a Pokemon's unique battling potential is fanatically a game guide. Vikrant Phadkay 09:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It would seem you are "severely narrow-minded", considering all you did is provide an ad hominem attack. --Teggles 11:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should not be considered bad game guide if merged articles talk about a Pokemon's unique battling potential if it is particularly outstanding, such as Rampardos having an astronomically high physical attack rating. That type of info should be considered encyclopedic for the sake of providing information, whereas what should not be considered encyclopedic is putting in much more generic information like every last location Zigzagoon appears in the Hoenn region. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 16:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true; Pokemon with the highest of a particular stat (or if that stat is notoriously high, like 120+) will have that mentioned. Porygon-Z and Alakazam are examples of two that are already up. The thing is, it won't go into detail about what the monster could do with every possible attack. There also shouldn't be things about ability if it is non-notable (non-exclusive abilities, Levitate if it does not eliminate a weakness, etc) or specific type influences unless the monster is notable for having 0-1 (maybe two if they're just Ghost/Dark, essentially the same attacking type) weaknesses.  You Can '  t See Me!  17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep All! These are good. They give information about all the Pokemon in the line. --Riley the Kirlia 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In fact, Magnemite evolutionary line was nominated for deletion recently and survived. I vote keep per rationale there.  You Can '  t See Me!  18:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepPer merger.--Zxcvbnm 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I've glanced at WP:POKE and I can tell that this is a merger in progress just like the Magnemite evolutionary line that survived as the result of a withdrawn nom. Just give them time to finish housecleaning first. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Merger in progress. hbdragon88 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge. This article is helpful, and could easily be merged rather than deleted outright. Sir 0rion 03:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The individual articles should have been redirected to these. It's what you call a "merge". --Teggles 04:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete All I am opposed to the mergers being discussed at the Poke project, and there is no reason for these to exist. TJ Spyke 05:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you bring up your concerns over at the POKE talk page? They've only been discussed for, like, at least two months now. hbdragon88 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * TJ Spyke, you've made ZERO reason for deletion of these articles. Yet you've said "strong delete all". Bias much? --Teggles 06:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep --valepert 12:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: At the heart of this proposed merger of 493 separate articles about Pokemon species are pages like this, which cover Pokemon that are obviously related to each other together to improve the context of the information (it's now easier to illustrate to readers how Porygon evolves into Porygon2, and Porygon2 more recently evolves into Porygon-Z), as well as provide a larger amount of practical material for each of these merged pages so that material frowned upon by the Wikipedia community, such as game guide and original research, do not need to be added to "fill up" these pages. How the actual pages themselves are laid out is a different matter, but in theory merging Pokemon by their evolutionary relations will count as a massive improvement to the way Pokemon species are presented to readers. (The aspect of the merger that needs discussion, IMO, is how to merge the species that don't have any evolutionary relations; I invite everyone to read my most recent proposal about that here, which is relevant to the other AFDs the nominator provided against the merger effort, this and this.) Erik Jensen (Appreciate 21:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What did you say? The evolutionary line articles do not overcome the sources or original research problem in any way! Instead I see tham packed with OR! Pidgeotto(anime) and Metagross(games) lose their notability completely when merged with their evolutionary family. So the Pidgey and Beldum evolutionary line articles must be deleted. Vikrant Phadkay 09:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just that I shudder to think what would happen if outside aministrators impose their own solution to the hundreds of specie articles with the sources and OR problems; by normal Wikipedia standards ,if such pages can't be merged anywhere, then admins and other users would support deleting them outright. I'd much rather not see coverage of Pokemon species on Wikipedia be completely removed, so in a sense I'm hoping we can save the Pokemon specie articles from mass deletion by merging them together into pages with more substance. I'm sure you don't want to see the Pokemon articles deleted either, so merging seems an excellent compromise. (And really, part of the point of merging species by evolutionary line is to remove content from the original separate pages that are considered OR and badly sourced; such bad content was needed to fill up the specie pages when they were independent, but they won't be needed to fill up merged evo-line pages, which is why merged pages will feature less OR than non-merged pages.) Erik Jensen (Appreciate 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is absolutely no reason to try and figure out how to merge all of the articles into arbitrary collections based on their in game evolutionary line. If it isn't broken, then why should it be fixed in the first place? The concept of evolution can be covered in the separate articles, through the Pokeinfobox or whatever it's called now. Just leave everything be and have lists that don't require illustrations.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not arbitrary if they're being grouped by established connections from multiple first-party sources. Second of all, the articles are broken in a sense. Sourcing is a terrible problem due to excessive "filler" content, which was only added to de-stubbify most articles. By merging the creatures together, need for that filler content will disappear. Additionally, putting the creatures together adds more context in terms of similarities and differences. Furthermore, an article per creature is undue weight, even for a subject such as Pokemon. This really isn't the best place to talk about reasoning behind the merger, though.  You Can '  t See Me!  23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So eliminate the filler content that cannot be sourced. Or source to the episodes if necessary.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't the place to discuss reasons for and against the merge. Continue the discussion, as you have been, at the Wikiproject page. The merger is set into place already and this AfD is not about stopping the merger, but rather getting rid of the already-merged pages. As it stands, these pages should be kept because the merger is still in progress; to delete them, the merge has to be stopped first, which is not the goal of this particular AfD.  You Can '  t See Me!  23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral: I say, I say, I don't get it!  We've got some people complaining that each and every Pokémon has its own article, and then when we step to reduce the number of articles, people want to delete those!    --Brandon Dilbeck 03:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems to be because there are a lot of users in both camps, and the concept of toning down the number of stubby, crufty Pokemon articles from 493 to much lower is just the sort of dividing issue that provides a grand For-vs-Against controversy. Erik Jensen (Appreciate 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: There's already separated pages for the 3 pokemons --SuperHotWiki 20:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: As stated several times, there won't be for long.  You Can '  t See Me!  21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I heavily doubt that anyone here voting "Delete" (including the nominator and excepting Ryulong and TJ Spyke) has read any of the debates over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout. -Jeske (v^_^v) 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Er, good point. I'll mellow out for now.  You Can '  t See Me!  21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep But I agree though. Redirects should be there. Hopefully with the Gyarados and Magikarp line, the vandalism about Magikarp being "crap" will stop. TheBlazikenMaster 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. They all fail our inclusion standards. --- RockMFR 14:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep And all evolutionary lines should replace the individual articles for pokemon with evolutions. It's just more convienent, and easier to read. 64.236.245.243 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even though it's perhaps pointless having pages like that when they've all got their own pages linked too each other already, but for somepeople it is interesting to see pictures of them all near each other to compare them. - Steveking89 18:55, 25 May 2007 (GMT)
 * Erm, Steve, read the links I laid out above in my comment. They *won't* have their own pages before too long. -Jeske (v^_^v) 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not supposed tp prophecise the result of this AfD. Vikrant Phadkay 09:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but do not merge for now - This seems contentious to make a bold statement. On one hand, there are camps in which they claim that not even 493 articles on individual Pokémon belong, just because it fails the out-of-universe notability (but I can name plenty more articles that would fall from this logic - for example, I have never read Harry Potter and from that perspective, I'd think that the articles there would be cruft).  On the other hand, some believe that it's overkill for 493 articles because of the fact that not all species can be taken from some independent context (for example, only on rare occasions do a lesser-evolved Pokémon enter competitive battling), making the typical game use section redundant.  Some unrelated Pokémon do not appear independently of these contexts either (I've heard movements to merge all 36 articles on the starter Pokémon together, for example, or at least to merge the Nidorans, Sandshrew/Ekans, Seedot/Lotad, Shuppet/Duskull, Miltank/Tauros, Volbeat/Illumise, Growlithe/Vulpix, and the list goes on).  Some advocate keeping the originals and making articles on evolutionary lines, just from a compromise standpoint, or to provide some support to individual articles.  On the articles on evolutionary lines, I fail to see (except for rare circumstanes such as Combee, Ralts, Snorunt, etc.) the context in which the line is more notable than the individual Pokémon that make up the line.  Until we can agree on what exactly we are doing (I'm not even sure if WP:POKE is inclusionist-dominated or deletionist-dominated, but it seems to be the latter, and my argument can very well extend to the stuff out there that's far more than 493-of-a-kind, like Digimon: Digital Monsters, Monster Rancher, and so on), we should not take action. kelvSYC 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: WikiProject Pokemon's members seem to be mostly either mergist (not unlike myself) and inclusionist; there are very few people who want any non-filler info deleted. Anyways, the only creatures from different evolutionary lines that are planned to be plopped onto one page are the legendaries from each generation, Lunatone/Solrock, Plusle/Minun, Volbeat/Illumise, Zangoose/Seviper, and the Nidorans. The thing is, we sort of have come to a general consensus on what to do (see the layout page and the discussions linked at the top). The movement itself was started because individual pages are not up to Wikipedia standards.  You Can '  t See Me!  04:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why the duos? There's also Oddish/Bellsprout, Meowth/Mankey, Glameow/Stunky, Magmar/Electabuzz/Jynx, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those duos were selected because they are treated as pairs in the games and anime. Plusle/Minun have the obvious similarities and linking abilities, Volbeat/Illumise and NidoranM/NidoranF are basically extreme gender variations of the same species (much Burmy's evolutions), Zangoose/Seviper are described as bitter, irreconcilable rivals, and Solrock/Lunatone are counterparts. The others listed (Oddish/Bellsprout, Meowth/Mankey, etc) just happen to be version-difference monsters with no other common link.  You Can '  t See Me!  23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Caterpie/Weedle? They're viewed as opposites. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you feel like it, you could discuss what gets merged where on the Layout page. This AFD debate doesn't seem like the right place, though.  You Can '  t See Me!  03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Did somebody say that this is not the place to discuss the merger? Hah, there are so many places where this issue has been seen! So anyone can blindly, or selfishly, assume that this merging is not being opposed! Such users go on merging, and it is as clear as crystal that they violate either WP:POINT or WP:OWN. Vikrant Phadkay 09:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss the merger. This AfD is a discussion over whether or not Porygon evolutionary line and related artciles should be deleted or not. As of now, no they should not because the merger is currently going on. This AfD is not about whether the merger is right or not. Take that up on the WikiProject Pokemon page. And please, bring some arguments backed up by Wikipedia policy rather than an array of complaints, distortions of policy, arguments that should be avoided, and personal attacks.  You Can '  t See Me!  17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep If all Pokemon have their own article, then these ones should too. G1  gg  y  !  04:08, 28 May 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.