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




 * 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 no consensus. Mango juice talk 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Pokémon/Torchic
Copied from a userspace some months ago. No need to have it anymore. Magioladitis (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, not needed since the subject isn't individually notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep I made that page because I moved all my Pokemon userspace pages to the project so they could be worked on without feeling like they were invading my space or something. If you want to move it back to User:Bws2cool/Torchic, then that would be fine. These pages are here to see what they would look like as articles. They can then be accessed at any time for if reception that makes them notable for an article is found. I dont think this article violates any rules being in the Project space. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem would be the same if they were in your userspace or in the project space: Other namespaces are not for long term hosting of articles that are not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, and might never be suitable for inclusion.  I suggest that you grab a copy of the source text and save it locally. Gigs (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you show me the guidelines that say this? I hate it when people go on and on about rules and don't link them. But like I said, if this MfD comes down to deleting, then just move it to my namespace. (With the history please. Not just a C+P) Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CREEP, WP:BEANS, WP:BURO and WP:BADIDEA. We don't list every possible thing that's a bad idea.  Long term hosting of articles that are unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia in other namespaces in an effort to avoid deletion is something that I'm absolutely certain there would not be community consensus for. Gigs (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * None of those links answered my question. Why arent these articles allowed on the project space? If the Pokémon Project as a whole agrees to allow the articles to be there, then I see no reason why not. Either post a real guideline/rule that says these cant be hosted there, or ask on the project talk page if they want to allow them there. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The articles in this context were meant to be for all project editors to work on, which is understandable as userspace pages can have a more "closed off" feel to newcomers that might be able to help establish notability. While I personally doubt Torchic will ever pass WP:N...I can understand the idea in concept and think he has a good approach at it. Only thing I'd push for is the removal of categories to prevent confusion with actual articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All categories have been removed from these pages a while ago, as far as I know. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then there's no problem at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Super ultra strong delete Using Wikiprojects and project space for long term hosting of collaborative articles that are otherwise unsuitable for inclusion is an end-run around our normal inclusion policies. If this closes keep, I intend to open an RfC. Gigs (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with deleting some of these articles like maybe Torchic, Jynx evolutionary line, and Shroomish evolutionary line, but some of the other ones have been worked hard on and just need a touch of reception to be articles. Plus, you havent shown why they cant be in the project space yet. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia namespace is for material about wikipedia, not for long term hosting of articles that aren't suitable for inclusion, no matter how much work went into them. Likewise, your userspace is not for long term hosting of articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria either. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are articles in the wikiproject space with subjects that you think can pass WP:N, I suggest that you move them out into article space. I intend to nominate all the remaining non-notable project space articles in a day or so. I really dislike the idea of a wikiproject having "hidden" articles (in the project's words) in an attempt to bypass notability. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You still havent shown where the Wikipedia guidelines say this. If any articles were ready to become real articles, they would be there already. Also, they arent "hidden" if the Project knows about them. I think if the project is ok with it, then they can have any articles they want in their space. There are a few pages that I would agree with deleting, but a handful of them I think should stay. Like Lucario(I am trying to find more sources), Kadabra(Currently working on it. Was about to bring it to the project to add to it), Meowth(Somebody said something about how they found sources for Team Rocket.) Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no specific rule for this, and I am not required to find one. "Wikipedia is not governed by statute". I can only tell you that I strongly believe that community consensus will not support the long term hosting of articles about non-notable subjects in any namespace. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked and the closest thing I could find to what you are talking about is WP:UP. These articles are not what it describes. Although I can admit I made User:Bws2cool/Articuno because I was bored and dont expect it to become an article, it might fall under that rule. These other articles do not fall under that rule, as I do think that they can be real articles. They are not a "replacement for a real article" because I dont agree with the rules or something. I am trying to help Wikipedia with these articles and you are attempting to delete them. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move to Userspace There has been no demonstrable guideline presented that would prevent the pages from existing. Some pages—including Torchic's—have not even been there long, so I'm unsure what the "long-term" argument is.  The articles aren't being hosted in lieu of mainspace listing, but are instead being used for collaboration until they are ready for mainspace or determined to be completely non-notable. The project should be able to determine the usefulness of keeping the pages; if for some reason the project is not allowed to do this, the pages should be moved back to userspace as is common practice for articles not ready for mainspace. There is no reason to delete because Gig's doesn't like it. —Ost (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Here is a list of what I think should happen to the articles.
 * Keep - Bulbasaur - It was moved to the Project space, but it could come out again sometime. Kadabra - Recently working on it. Lucario - Working on this. Waiting for one or two more things to pop up. Meowth - Going to ask WP:POKE if they actualy have sources.
 * Weak keep/delete - Squirtle - Not very notable but I didn't really look hard. Blastoise - It has already been established that it cant be an article, but you never know. Mudkip - "sigh" nothing was notable but the meme, which doesnt help at all.
 * Delete - Charmander evolution line - None are notable except Charizard. Jynx - Move the history to Jynx if possible. Jynx evolutionary line - Old page. Pokémon Pinball - I was trying to find a way to merge the pages, but diddnt get very far. Shroomish evolutionary line - Old page. Squirtle evolution line - I was trying to merge the familys for a Starter Pokémon article. Bad idea. Torchic - I did this a while ago. I dont think it could be an article though.
 * Thoughts? Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the right place to have this larger discussion. Gigs (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be better then creating 10+ different AfD's. I see it happen all the time. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Go here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pokémon. I'm not eager to file 10 separate AfDs either if we can resolve this through normal discussion. Gigs (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I haven't the least idea which are and which aren't notable, or will prove to be productive, but it's reasonable to continue working on them.    DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Delete or userfy - if they are reasonable to work on, that still doesn't mean they should be hosted in Wikipedia space rather than userspace. ''"If the Pokémon Project as a whole agrees to allow the articles to be there, then I see no reason why not"? Try WP:NOT! That space does not belong to the Pokémon Project, it belongs to Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:13, 5 September 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.