Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon species pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pokémon species pages (Mouse Pokémon, Flame Pokémon, Shellfish Pokémon, etc) 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 merge. All extant species articles have been combined at List of Pokémon by species. Cool Hand Luke 05:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no point in having pages of Pokémon species. Some evolutions of Pokémon are different species. For example, Charmander is a Lizard Pokémon, while Charmeleon and Charizard are Flame Pokémon. Andros 1337 04:53, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I briefly considered the idea of these as categories..that might be feasible, but the current pages shouldn't be kept. I'm saying this as both a Wikipedian and a Pokémon fan. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 05:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Probably should be categories. Flame Pokémon even says it's to be expanded as articles are written. In either case, delete these. Cool Hand Luke 05:27, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: These seem harmless. Trivial perhaps, maybe rename to list of mouse Pokémon and so on? The information is encyclopedic, it's just a question of organisation and indexing. Categories seem to be getting a bit out of hand, not convinced that's a good way to organise things but it may be. Also, if they are to be deleted I'd like to vote on a complete list, not just these as prototypes. Someone will need to do the list someday! No vote as yet. Andrewa 06:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I remember being a Pokemon fan years ago, and no one I knew bothered to refer to Pokemon by their "species type". It was always their "element". (So you'd say, "I caught Charmander, that fire-type Pokemon." rather than, "That lizard pokemon." And so on.) So on the basis of unnotability, even within the fandom, delete. PMC
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 07:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Should probably be merged into some larger article, as alone they don't yeild encyclopedic articles. siroχo 10:25, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. I'm the one who originally suggested these be deleted, as a Wikipedian and as a Pokémon fan (Pokémaniac, even). See, each Pokémon has a name, like Pikachu, but also has a "species" thing in its Pokédex description. The only thing with this "species" is... they're often unique to the Pokémon, unique to its evolutionary family (if even that, as the Charmander example shows) or connects rather unrelated Pokémon. (Like Pikachu, a forest- and plain-dwelling Electric-type, and Sandshew, a cave- and desert-dwelling Ground type.) Besides that, like PMC said, it's not all that notable within the fandom – off the top of my head, I can probably recall five: my two favorite Pokémons', one that taught me a new word, and a couple very, very obvious ones. Just the same, it is kind of interesting to have it pointed out that both Pikachu and Sandshew are Mouse Pokémon... I say the lists should be deleted, but maybe the info kept on the Pokémons' pages – for instance, on the Pikachu article, have a section labelled "Other Mouse Pokémon" and list the others there. That or have one large page, something like List of Pokémon by species, and put stuff there. --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 16:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of sections like "Other (blank) Pokemon". It keeps the info, but keeps it from being placed into individual articles for lack of other places to go. So in that case, I'll vote merge and delete. (NOT merge and redirect, because where would we redirect them?) PMC 21:03, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete according to the above suggestions. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect all. Leaving red links only encourages these kids to recreate these articles. -Sean Curtin 00:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Where would we redirect them to? Would mouse Pokémon go to Pikachu or Sandshrew? Both are mouse Pokémon. Therefore redirects are pointless. Just nuke 'em all. PMC 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Merge them all into one page. -Sean Curtin 00:40, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
        • But is List of Pokémon species (or Pokémon species) really notable enough to give it its own article? I don't think it is. I mean, I was a hardcore fan for years, and I couldn't have named even my favorite Pokémon's species if you paid me. It isn't even important within the fandom. I like Sparky's idea - put it in each Pokémon's page, then have some kind of template linking to "Other (blank) Pokémon". PMC 05:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I say we just delink all the species names in the "Pokémon taxoboxes". --Sparky the Seventh Chaos 01:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Strongly. PMC 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge. Please, for the love of God.Suntiger 03:18, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge all the Pokécruft into one article. —tregoweth 05:22, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd like to say merge and delete, but there's really not enough to the species categorization that warrants it going on its own page, or being made another section of List of Pokémon. Also, in agreement with Sparky, remove the links from the taxoboxes. Oh, and as much as I respect Tregoweth's dislike of Pokemon -- that's a lot of cruft to merge. Azure Haights 05:57, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • There are so many Pokemon species articles! MERGE THEM ALL into one article, or just delete them all! Forgotmytea 13:38, 9 Nov 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.