Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

In general, the reasons given in the closure of this AfD apply mutatis mutandis. Moreover, this article has additional policy problems which the "keep" opinions fail to adequately address: most content is unverifiable, sourced either to "the games and their manuals" in general or to a small number of unreliable sources. Also, its scope and subject brings it into conflict with WP:NOTGUIDE, a policy.

To the extent that a very concise summary of this content (about one paragraph) is required to adequately explain the game within the scope of an encyclopedia, it may be restored for selective merging to Pokémon or another article – as soon as reliable, specific sources are provided.  Sandstein  17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon types

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pokémon types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Still appears to be a "detailed" wholly in-world game guide information that really should only belong on a FAQ page. Salavat (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and transwiki to a strategy guide Wiki of some sort — Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, none of the articles referenced establish any out–of–universe notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if the final consensus is to delete, then this article should be merged to Pokémon game mechanics and made into a redirect. Artichoker[talk] 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fans may not need this article. But the rest of us do, in order to make sense of the material. We write for the general reader, and this is not excessive detail. For example, a true article in a fan wiki should explain every instance of every type of conflict,and this just gives representative ones to explain the concepts. DGG (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge into Pokémon game mechanics#Pokémon types. We don't need a comprehensive table of type interactions, but it's appropriate to discuss the concept of types and how they affect each other in the context of explaining the gameplay. Pagrashtak 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually think the table should stay. Comprehensiveness is a good thing in this case, and the table clearly shows the effectiveness of each type to one another. Ideally, if this were merged, it would become a paragraph giving a general overview of the types and then the table which explains everything else. Artichoker[talk] 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explain to me why a reader who will not play the games is interested in knowing the results of every possible attack combination. That table would look right at home in a game guide. Pagrashtak 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never played the game series, but I edit the articles and find them quite interesting to read. Until I saw this table, I never realized there were so many Pokémon types. They must have added about twelve of those later in the series. I'm only familiar with the first 151 Pokémon. Useight (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with the cogent rationale provided above by DGG (talk · contribs). Not to mention that there are some good sources already provided in the article. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree as far as the sources are concerned. None of the sources are verifiable. The serebii.net and TRsRockin.com sites are basically Pokemon fansites. The review from GameFAQs seems like it's from a user and not from a staff member or any other verifiable journalist. (It has already been determined here that references to GameFAQs should only be used for release data.) MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • MuZemike is right—the references in the article come from two places: serebii.net and trsrockin, both of which are fan sites. The sourcing in this article is very weak. Pagrashtak 02:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not an appropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE. Asserts no notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a necessary and helpful support article for the other Pokémon articles. It's no good having explain all this stuff over and over again in all the other Pokémon articles. Let's just keep this article so the others can link to it. Original research can be fixed. The article shouldn't be deleted because of OR that you can just clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunDragon34 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for those of us that don't speak Pokemon and acts as a well to not replicate information across many articles. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A game guide, written from an in-universe perspective, based in many parts on original research. Edison (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This game guide/continuity guide can be consigned to history. The fact that some people find them interesting is nice, but there are other projects for this sort of thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pokemon types are one of the franchise's core concepts, almost as important as Pokemon battles themselves, as it determines what can and can't happen in a battle. Condensing it into a single paragraph on the Pokemon game mechanics page won't do much good, considering how diverse types are. This is a complicated concept that deserves its own article. Some other concepts are simpler and can be condensed, but not this one. Condensing it can potentially confuse the general reader, as they may not know enough about types to understand the properties of Ice or Normal type Pokemon, to name a few. (Iuio (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Not to be rude Le Grand Roi but you quote that Five Pillars thing in every AFD related to cruft, in the exact same format. I feel that you may be trying to increase the amounts of keeps on the page? Salavat (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Le Grand Roi: as found in the essay WP:JNN, with which I think you are familiar, stating keep due to notability is not helpful if you do not also explain why it is notable. As it stands, your keep statement does nothing to help me gauge if I need to reconsider my stance. Pagrashtak 05:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, IMO the article could be summed up:
Pokemon types are special attributes that all pokemon have and can prove to be a strength or weakness when in battle with another pokemon. These types also apply to the various moves which pokemon have, eg pickachu might have an electric type move. In the anime series the strength and weaknesses are also evident, however not always do the follow "rules", these rules do differ from game to anime, but are mostly similar. To create a balance each move has its weaknesses and strengths, with all of this creating a balanced gameplay within the games.
Although maybe something a bit more thought out in regards to wording, this sorta thing doesnt need to go into depth. Salavat (talk) 05:13, 20 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pokémon_types_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1136470089"