Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venonat

Venonat was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Cool Hand Luke  09:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No content except for a taxobox. RickK 22:41, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, a sidebox does not a stub make. Shane King 23:50, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on every Pokemon. This will be expanded. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:05, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * keep. Put an expand tag on it. If every other Pokemon deserves a page, this one does too. Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]] 02:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * D unless improved. IMO, I don't see why individual species of Pokemon get pages like those of real species.  Chris 02:46, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, and delete that horrid "you will be helping Pokemon take over Wikipedia" stub template, too. If every Pokemon has a page, I will personally vote delete as a separate entity on every one, if they are nominated.  I will not hunt them or tag them, but if I'm asked, I'll say they ought to be in one vast table and one vast article. Geogre 03:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * if we indeed have articles for other pokemon, then keep. Posiduck 03:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with lachatdelarue. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 03:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anti-Pokemon opinions are POV and therefore off-topic.  This article is important for consistency and completeness reasons; being personally opposed to having Pokemon on Wikipedia is irrelevant. Factitious 04:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if that were the case anti-Professor opinions would be POV also, so someone would be entitled to create a page on every Professor they've ever met. But if you expand the general rule used for schools, characters from fiction and professors to Pokemon - this isn't notable outside of Pokemon, so isn't notable in it's own right. I'd vote delete for a local school, for an obscure professor, for a dwarf given a one line mention in Tolkein. So I'll vote delete for this. Average Earthman 11:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Who says it's an "anti-Pokemon opinion?" That's ridiculous.  "Voting to delete or merge and delete an article is a Pokemon hater" is silly.  I've been consistent, and I will continue to be the same way:  if it's known outside of its master topic, it should exist outside of its master topic.  If it isn't, it shouldn't.  The template on this article shows that there has been a concerted effort to get all Pokemon.  We don't get all of the Tolkein entities, all of the Star Trek stuff, all of the Star Wars stuff, all of the name-the-science-fiction-universe worlds, etc.  Persistence in error is no virtue.  Geogre 12:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I expressed that very poorly. I don't mean that voting to delete a Pokemon article is POV, and I have no objection to your position as expressed above.  What I meant was that disliking Pokemon shouldn't affect the voting here.  I don't like The Real World, but we should definitely have an article on it.  I apologize if my hasty statement above offended you; I can see that it does seem ridiculous.  Getting back to the article, the template doesn't say that we should have articles on all Pokemon, merely that all Pokemon stubs should be expanded. Factitious 16:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, Factitious. I've been in a biting mood lately (see below, when I made someone "with an English degree" upset).  Need to get more red meat in my diet, and maybe I'll stop biting fingers.  Geogre 00:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note that my listing this had nothing to do with pro or con Pokemon feelings, but solely because there is no content in this article. RickK 23:32, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs expansion. Radman1 06:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or, at the very least, merge/redirect to a blanket minor Pokemon article. Nothing against Pokemon, but it should be deleted, regardless of other Pokemon receiving articles. Out of the hundreds of Pokemon, few are deserving of individual articles (barring Pikachu, Jigglypuff, and a few others). You can't say much about the others beyond "this [blank]-based Pokemon is strong against [blank] and weak against [blank]," or what little information is lifted directly from the Pokedex. Name origins don't count - you don't need someone telling you what the name Sandshrew derives from. Ian Pugh 06:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has long been established that information about Pokemon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, regardless of how some individual contributors feel. Further, since Wikipedia is not paper, I'm not sure what the point of limiting the amount of Pokemon information we include is. Also, it doesn't seem to me that merging all/much of the pokemon content into a single article would have any effect on the quantity of Pokemon information on Wikipedia. It would just be organized differently (and imho not as well). Nohat 07:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I could very well see the Pokemon pages growing to a project of their own, or at least to some nifty templates. --Tmh 10:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pokemon. anthony &#35686;&#21578; 14:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, to counter the "anti-Pokemon opinions" keep vote. -- WOT 15:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * At what point, if any, does all this Pokemon information become a copyright violation? I guess it might be a bit different for these deck-based games, but if we took the approach to Dungeons and Dragons that we take to Pokemon we would have all the information in all the manuals here on wikipedia. No one would ever need to buy those $20 books again. Surely TSR would not approve. As for the vote here: no vote as present. I can't really say we should delete this and not all the other Pokemon, but I really can't vote in favor. My plan is to wait it out. In 2 years no one will give shit about Pokemon and all this can be trimmed and merged into a few articles that give it representation it deserves. -R. fiend 16:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. Please list other pokemon on VfD for deletion too. --Improv 17:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but only if expanded. I figure that any Pokémon that I have heard of is probably notable. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, well made stub. Sam [Spade] 19:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you are the type of person that just screams in horror at the sight or thought of Pokemon, then I suggest you not search for them in Wikipedia anymore ;). As for the rest of the people, we have a Pokemon article to look at. --ShaunMacPherson 20:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia were my website, every bit of this garbage would be thrown out, fast. But it isn't, and Pokémon doesn't get in the way of my own little dadas (obscure central Italian villages, if you must know). Keep. &#8212; Bill 23:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. NeoJustin 23:49 Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, needs work &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  23:55, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand. If this cannot be expanded, merge with main pokemon article and redirect.Pedant 18:21, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)
 * Either expand it into a real article or delete this infodump of a substub. --Slowking Man 06:51, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Expand and keep. - Vague Rant 03:44, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't see why all pokemon species don't get moved to wikibooks. Seems like the right place for them. Easy to access, consolodation seems perfect to me. Otherwise Keep *sigh* [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 03:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there is an article about e.g. a mayfly species with a taxobox and a mere one sentence like "X mayfly is a mayfly.", no-one wants to delete it. But if it is a popular culture topic like Pokemons or Star Trek, then some people start fussing. Such attitude is elitism, I think. Pokemons are notable and therefore every Pokemon stub capable of becoming an article should be kept. -Hapsiainen 13:17, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.