Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon directory

: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 redirect to List of Pokémon. —SpacemanSpiff 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

=[[Pokémon directory]]=

:{{la|Pokémon directory}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon directory}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Pokémon directory}})

WP:DIRECTORY. This information has to be available elsewhere, and all it is is a listing of Pokemon characters and their "hit points", "attack" points, and a number of other attributes. I would support userfication so the editor can put it on a non-wikipedia page, but this is exactly the kind of statistical, directory driven page that's not an encyclopedia article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete or Redirect. A page that lists all officially confirmed species of Pokémon (including Zorua and Zoroark) already exists at List of Pokémon. And because Wikipedia is not a game guide or strategy guide, it would be inappropriate to merge most of the contents of the Pokemon Directory page into the List of Pokémon page. But a redirect to List of Pokémon would be okay with me since "pokemon directory" does appear to be a plausible search phrase. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC) (Last edited at 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC))
  • [Keep] This is not a strategy guide to being a Pokémon trainer or a game guide of the Pokémon games. This is a complete list English article that possesses all the 493 Pokémon recognized by the North American Pokémon site. This page was made in the name of giving people a quick overview of each of the Pokémon and their physical attributes all in one chart. I have looked over the List of Pokemon you mentioned to much of my care and just think the list is very disorganized and superficial in nature. It is a list of Pokémon ordered by 4 different Pokédex numbers(obsolete ones included). It is a very inefficient article in itself with space and information barely scratching the basic formula for each Pokémoon and how it stacks against the rest. The list of Pokemon also uses the Japanese names of each Pokemon to much of its appeal which really doesn't mean much to the community of those interested in simply understanding pokemon as a collective of different species. I will be updating this chart with body type, weight(might replace mass), and evolves from/into quite soon. It is very inefficient to spread almost 500 species of Pokémon across several pages of wikipedia and even less organized to split into group of different amounts that do not pertain to each other.If this page is to be deleted, I will make sure that there is a few more discernments that make this article more interesting to a community of Pokémon fanatics. Its not easy to find a Pokédex Online that holds all the Pokémon in one chart with one row per Pokémon with each interesting trait that can be contrasted across all others. I recommend someone make a key for this chart because of my lack of wiki experience and change certain symbols. Even renaming this page as Pokedex could be in better taste. This is hardly to be merged with "list of Pokemon" for it is not a translator of Pokédexes or languages. This is in itself a directory that scratches the surface of each Pokémon. ---Donovan3995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donovan3995 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't put too much work into it. It is going to be deleted. Unless you want it moved to User:Donovan3995/Pokemon Directory. Learn policies and how things work before making an article. You will not beat the system. Wikipedia is very strict. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Don’t be an ass, and don’t bite the newbies. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I wasn't being an ass or biting. I was just saying I wouldn't put too much work into it for it only to be deleted, unless he wanted it moved, and also pointed out that it would be unwise to try and fight for the article as he wouldn't win. Maybe I could have worded it better. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Donovan, I want to let you know that I am sorry for the harsh reception you are receiving. I believe you are editing in good faith, and I would hate for you to be discouraged or driven off by the unfortunate events of your first day. However, as Shadowjams points out, if not too clearly: Wikipedia is not a directory. And, you say you want to “giv[e] people a quick overview of[...] each Pokém[o]n and how it stacks against the rest.”, but the problem is that the method you use to do this is derived from in-game numerical statistics – thus these factors, including power, speed, stamina, and even size, are gameguide info, particularly because they are not consistent throughout other Pokémon media. Wikipedia policy on fictional characters is to give brief summaries of in-world history and then focus on the meta aspects, i.e., real world stuff, and some in-world stuff that crosses multiple media,( e.g., all generations of games; games and anime; games and TCG). The existing List of Pokémon provides a listing of trademarked names, and uses evolution chains and various numbering systems show how the Pokémon are consistently related to each other across all media, as well as how their introductions, presence, and prominence have fluctuated throughout the history of the gaming and meta franchise
    Again, [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net Bulbapedia] probably has the kind of comparison info you are looking for, and if it doesn’t would probably be a more appropriate and more receptive place( provided you read and follow their guidelines, since they are mostly teenagers and can get extremely bitchy if you don’t).
    Speaking of which, you really should acquaint yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and Manual of Style, as well as those of the Pokémon WikiProject. Doing so will greatly reduce the chances that you will have a repeat of this experience, doing massive work and having it removed or nominated for deletion. Particularly: Spell Pokémon correctly using an e with an acute accent, especially in articles if not on talk pages, don’t capitalize secondary words like “directory”, and sign talk page commens with four tildes( ~~~~) to generate a sig and timestamp, instead of just manually typing your username. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is pure gameguide info. Either move to User:Donovan3995/Pokemon Directory or redirect to List of Pokémon Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete See below will support redirect first i do want to recongnize the large amount of work that was put in here. That in itself is a tribute to the editor, however; That is not a reason to save the article. The fundamental issue is it reads as a strategy guide and directory. And that is unfortunately not what WP is about. The other information contained in List of Pokémon i think is fine and no merge is necessary. I am sorry to say that I have to lean towards deletion in my opinion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Pokémon. The information there is encyclopedic, and "pokemon directory" is a plausible search term. This would also keep the history of the article, in case the author would like to move it to another wiki – perhaps [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Main_Page Bulbapedia]. Jujutacular T · C 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect and protect if feasible. It is a likely search term, so it would make a good redirect to List of Pokémon. History should be preserved for transwikiing, but this does go into gameguide territory and cannot be kept in its current format. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of re-direction as well and would support that. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A note on that. If it's going to be useful as a redirect, it should be renamed so the accented e becomes a typeable e, because right now if you type "Pok" into the search box, this article doesn't even come up on the viewable list. And that's assuming they type "Pok" slowly enough for it to come up before they've type the "e", which excludes the possibility of them finding this in the search box. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pokemon Directory is already an autogenerated redirect to Pokémon directory from the move. Per double-redirect fixing, they would both be redirected to List of Pokémon if redirection is the consensus reached in this discussion. What’s more, typing “Poke” into the search box does yield results that begin with “Poké”. I suspect that the reason they don’t appear in the search box is because they are both too new and not heavily used or linked to. I am sure when the search box list updates both will start to appear when “pokemon di” is typed.--WikidSmaht (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not exactly when "Pokemon di" is typed, because of Pokemon Diamond and Pearl. "Pokemon dir" shows up with nothing at the moment though. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete This level of detail belongs on the [http://pokemon.wikia.com Pokemon wiki.] --John Nagle (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. {{#ifeq:none|none||([http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009782238053898643791:8naerdbd-oy&q={{urlencode:none}} Search video game sources])}} MrKIA11 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Pokémon. I suppose this is somewhat a plausible search term. Otherwise, it is clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE information. –MuZemike 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:17, 23 February 2010 (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.