Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokemon obtained by Main Characters

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 delete. No sources, and so unverifiable fancruft. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokemon obtained by Main Characters

At first each individual Pokémon character in the anime had a section showing the Pokémon they had. These were eventually removed due to being trivial and failing WP:N. This article was then created; it has no encyclopedic value, and is mainly a bunch of cruft, simply listing each Pokémon every character has. It has no sources and and fails WP:N. Artichoker (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't much like the term "fancruft" but this is. As someone who is only familiar in passing with Pokemon I'm not even sure what the context of this is - the TV show? Without sources and references I cannot see this being remotely encyclopedic. ~ mazca ^talk 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This borders on silliness. No refs either, so therefore it doesn't meet WP:N. Honestly, when will we stop being "the Pokemon encyclopedia"? I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I object to this recursive Pokemonism. This is a pretty indiscriminate collection of information. Where will it end otherwise? Ohconfucius (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This clearly falls under fancruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, notable, and verifiable), Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world), consistent with What Wikipedia is, and also because "cruft" is never a valid argument per Wikipedia:Cruftcruft and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how exactly is this notable without any sources or references? Artichoker^talk 00:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pokemon is unquestionably notable and the title does say "Main Characters". Just because the article is not sufficiently referenced doesn't mean it "can't" be referenced, especially considering the widespread coverage of Pokemon. Plus, the article is but days old, why not Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.