Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types

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 no consensus whether to delete or merge. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 18:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon types

This article is entirely original research and violates Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:NOT, which states that Wikipedia is not a venue for game guide information and is not a dumping ground. I suggest that this be placed in an interested party's userspace to transwiki it or keep for personal use and then delete it from Wikipedia hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just had to slash Legendary Pokémon down for the same reason, and, frankly, all of this is pure game guide, full of bad advice and a total lack of real-world perspective. Whudda mess. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, Wikipedia is not a game guide, fancruft. MER-C 09:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, I'm going to take the nominators advice and save the article under my user space. User:The Hybrid/Types. Merge per below. T H L 09:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokemon game mechanics. The bulk of the article (the entire "list of pokemon types" section) is sort of useless. But the paragraphs on STAB, Physical/Special attack, and effects on gameplay are worth keeping. There actually a whole bunch of other very similar pokemon articles (similar as in they would fit quite nicely on a place like gamefaqs), basically everything in Category:Pokémon video game mechanics. Considering there is a main Pokemon game mechanics article, it's probably better to merge the good bits of these articles into it, instead of simply deleting. --`/aksha 10:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per `/aksha. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 11:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trim, trim, trim, trim, and merge the rest into Pokemon game mechanics in agreement with Yaksha. WP:NOT a game guide nor a collection of trivial details. Barno 13:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gave Pokémon game mechanics a weak keep because it helped in understanding the games, but wow. This is ENTIRELY original research original research, and it's way more detailed than just an "aid understanding" article would be. As previously mentioned, WP:NOT a game guide. -Amarkov ^babble 13:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This page doesn't deserve its own space, but saying stuff like "There are seventeen different Pokemon types and all that" is better off in the Pokemon creature articles. It worked for Bulbasaur and Torchic. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- United961 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the mechanics article. That AfD looks like it's headed for a keep. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokemon game mechanics --ASDFGHJKL 21:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per above. If there is any useful, externally verifiable, non-OR information, salvage it. Wipe out the rest of the game guide by any means necessary. -- saberwyn 23:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. —Khoi khoi 02:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokemon game mechanics per several suggestions. I've heard rumors of past attempts to AfD Pokemon articles, so I was very surprised that this attempt hasn't started a firestorm. Good to see mature heads prevail. - Lex 03:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like there's anyone who actually thinks it should be kept... -Amarkov ^babble 04:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of popular game/anime series seems to have improved vastly recently; it seems that the wikiprojects are now taking maintenance as seriously as expansion, and simultaneously the deletionists have stopped being so aggressive (no references to notability so far here, only one mention of cruft, etc). I think it's safe to be optimistic. :)
As for this article, merging the details that pokemon experts consider useful and well-established is the way to go. — Haeleth Talk 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pokemon game mechanics There's a lot of important information in terms of the Pokemon franchise, however it does belong with the game mechanics section.198.213.57.8 04:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Makoeyes987[reply]
Strong Delete - No sources, original research, fancruft, seems to be yet another in a long line of pointless cruft articles that have been put on by someone so they can say 'I have an article on wikipedia.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kinslayer (talk • contribs)
Merge per above. --- RockMFR 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This goes into even more detail than some of the Pokémon walkthroughs I've used! Oh, and redirect to Pokémon game mechanics to discourage recreation. If the game mechanics article can't efficiently hold all this info it's a good sign that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Garrett^Talk 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I visit this page regularly when I can't remember certain types. Most sites think it goes without saying, but no one else really shows this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.156.161 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - Another comment that supports deletion. WP:NOT a game guide. Go to gamefaqs or somewhere similar instead. The Kinslayer 13:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bulbapedia already has all of this, except better explained. Go there if you need the info so much.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 01:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Cynical 11:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information contained HAS been published by reliable sources. Just check out your old copies of Pokemon RBY manuals. It's simply being reiterated. --Pasajero 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a dumping ground. Number 4 on that list: Instruction Manuals. The Kinslayer 17:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Wikipedia also should contain information about basic elements of a game series, which is what this article and Pokémon game mechanics are doing. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 17:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Andre (talk) 20:57, 22 October 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.