Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parukia

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 speedy keep. «ct» (tk|e) 05:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parukia[edit]

Again another pointless character in a minor and non-notable videogame. This page seems to be the target of more vandalism too, so it's deletion will assist in the prevention of vandalism on Wikipedia as well. Skarlotte 15:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Same response from Diaruga. It's Pokemon. Pokemon is very notable. -Sukecchi 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep notable character, likely bad-faith nomination. See nominator's other contributions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Yikes, as far as I know the Pokemon franchise is one of the most major and notable videogame-based full media franchises in the history of the industry, and Diamond and Pearl are currently the games in much of that industry's spotlights. Add to that that when the game is released in Japan in a little over a month, Diaruga and Parukia would easily be among the most notable characters especially since they will be on the covers to the game (and being on the cover and representative of the game actually gives them more point than all the other Pokemon creatures), so I think you might not be fully aware of the situation. :( Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sorry but if you nominate one pokemon you might as well nominate all of them. Unless there's something considerably non-notable about this particular one then there isn't really any grounds for deletion.--Andeh 17:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: To claim that an article should be deleted simply because its a target of vandalism is not how Wikipedia works, and regardless of my opinion on the Pokemoncruft here, I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending anything but a speedy keep based on that aspect of the nominator's rationale. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep You seem to have something against all Pokemon; a great deal of your (few) contributions have been to nominate several Pokemon-related articles for deletion. Suffice it to say that despite your assertions, Pokemon is indeed a notable series of games, in part due to it's extreme popularity worldwide. --Robaato 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per same rationale on Dialga nomination. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 20:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Like Diaruga, he is going to be getting more and more information. Toastypk 20:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as per logic and Wikipedia policy. DanPMK 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - you're making an effort to stop vandalism in articles by nominating them for deletion? That logic is basically flawed in that articles only occasionally get vandalised in the idea that the person who vandalised the article had the clear intent. Also, why nominate Palkia for vandalism when it, when there could be many other articles that suffer, have more vandalism? The article in question has very little "vandalism". --T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just like the discussion over the deletion of Diaruga. It is unecessary. Parukia and Diaruga are the main advertising pokemon of Diamond and Pearl, and they are the two lengendary pokemon of Diamond and Pearl. I would like to raise the point, If you propose deletion of Parukia and Diaruga, why not propose deletion of all other pokemon related to Diamond and Pearl? It doesn't make senseThey are highly notable pokemon in a highly notable game. This deletion nomination is rediculous. 0-172 01:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the fact that the user also tried to delete Pokémon Diamond and Pearl as well makes me question that this is nomination is in good faith. Also vandalism is not a reason to delete. --Edgelord 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This article may not have much to it now, but that is because it is an article about a future release character. Within about a month, I'm sure that this article will expand and be just as relevent as every other Pokémon article. --SaturnYoshi 16:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Once this game is out in English, I'm sure it will be as thorough as the other Pokemon articles. Since the nominator is claiming main-series Pokemon games are non-notable, this must be bad faith. Ace of Sevens 18:32, 20 August 2006 (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.