Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Species


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was withdrawn, nominator decided to instead revive the task force. –xenotalk 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Pokémon/Species
Not used anymore. Hasnt been edited in over 2 years. -- Blake (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reason given for deletion. –xenotalk 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a project page that hasnt been used in over 2 years. It isnt linked from anywhere and was most likly forgotten. --Blake (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It does indeed has a handful of incoming links: . Since deletion doesn't save space, I don't see the need for deleting this. However, if other members of the WikiProject Pokemon agree it should be deleted, I will change my position. –xenotalk 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 things related to its Deletion
 * 3 Archives linking to the page (2 of which were advertizing the task force, while the other was talking about deleting it.)
 * 2 drafts from the founder's userspace
 * 2 pages relating to the userbox (The userbox of the taskforce and a person who used it.)
 * It was a failed Task Force that diddnt get but 1 or 2 members. Maybe slap a historical template on there. --Blake (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is, If there's a chance it might become active, we gain nothing by deleting it and actually set ourselves further back as someone will need to duplicate the original effort in creating the task force. –xenotalk 15:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont think it would ever become active again unless all the Pokémon get split back into the 493 articles. Currently we only have 6 Pokémon species articles. These can easily be mannaged by Project Pokémon and dont need a taskforce. --Blake (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained what possible harm it's causing by remaining though. Remember deletion doesn't save space. –xenotalk 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Little to gain through deletion, potentially a lot to gain by keeping. It's inactive, so it should have an inactive tag transcluded on it, but we should keep it around for archival purposes in case someone wants to restart it.  It could be construed to do lots of things - manage what few Pokémon have their own articles, manage the massive lists of Pokémon (especially Pokédex information), whatever.  It would also have been a useful place to discuss the whole Bulbasaur/Bulbasaur-Ivysaur-Venusaur Evolutionary Line thing before bringing it to the larger PCP or VG community. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It seems to be totally archaic as its purpose was to merge the individual species into lists, which was completed quite some time ago. However, the whole issue that arose from each Pokémon having its own page is infamous on Wikipedia, so I say the Template:Historical idea is best. -sesuPRIME talk • contribs 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Well, if the consensus is going to be Keep, I would be willing to revive the taskforce. --Blake (talk) 19:14, 19 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.