Talk:Treecko/Pokémon Debate

From VfD:

Wikipedia doesn't need an article on every single Pokemon character. See also: Sceptile, Torchic, Combusken, Blaziken and Mudkip, among MANY others. Is it possible to put all those listed on List of Pokémon up for a mass deletion? Wikipedia is not a fansite. And while Wikipedia may not be paper, server resources are also finite. --Elf-friend 17:52, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Here's where people start yelling at me: I'd vote delete on all of them as individual entries. I would welcome, instead, four to eight articles with whatever narratives are really needed. It's a question of granularity and of placing trading cards on the same level as epic poems, great revolutions, and major scientific discoveries. We say that stars should be lumped until they have a notable name, but each and every Pokemon, together with each playing venue? No. Delete Treecko, the "Pokedex," and the massive project of trying to make Wikipedia the best spot on the web for Pokemon trivia. Geogre 17:59, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Within the game, as I remember playing it, all the Pokemon have numbers. So why not make a few lists and organize them by number? List of Pokemon #000-050, List of Pokemon #051-100, and so on to infinity. That way, we keep the individual info for all the Pokefans and get rid of the unnecessary clutter of seperate articles. PMC 02:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A lot have work has gone into these, and while they're not exactly my cup of tea, I can understand why some people would be interested. Ambi 10:44, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• A lot of work has gone into some of the bad jokes and other nonsense articles. This simply isn't encyclopaedic. It's more like part of a manual of the game/runthrough/whatever - can't we move it somewhere more appropriate? Average Earthman 10:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • A Wikibooks "Field guide to Pokemon" would be a great place for them. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:42, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Now, that would be just brilliant. PMC 05:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I don't mind seeing this here, myself. Keep. Rhymeless 04:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• While I understand that you may not like Pokémon, I don't think all this info should be deleted from Wikipedia. As Ambi said before me, a lot of work has gone into creating the two-hundred (or so) pages that exist so far. Some pokémon may not be worthy of their own page (whih may be why they don't have one yet) but others most ceraintly do (Like Pikachu due to its fame). There are also many people who like Pokémon (otherwise the games wouldn't be selling, would they? J)
  I second the motion of grouping them, but am strongly against deleting them entirely. Perhaps Pichu-Pikachu-Raichu could be grouped in one article, Igglybuff-Jigglypuff-Wigglytuff in another, and so on (since Kittens are not in a separate article to Cats, for example); or the suggestion of grouping them by number could also be the solution. The only thing about grouping them by number would be that if not done correctly, we could end up with massive articles and separate some Pokémon from their evolution.
  This is my view (though I may not be speaking for all the other Pokéfans out there) and I hope it holds some water. Thanks for your attention.
  --Fern 18:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Grouping by evolutionary line, that's not a bad idea either. Title it Pikachu family or something...yeah, I like that. PMC 23:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Excessive granularity. Non-encyclopedic. Fan-site fare. Non-encyclopedic. Along the lines of individual D&D spells. Did I say "non-encyclopedic?" SWAdair | Talk 07:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Or move to Wikibooks. RSpeer 17:49, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or merge and move to somewhere suitable with REDIRECTS. Stop stupid stubs. Jallan 19:55, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge into a large article. WhisperToMe 03:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete. anthony (see warning) 13:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't merge. Valid information that wouldn't fit nicely together. Guanaco 16:49, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Failing that, merge or transwiki. -Sean Curtin 23:51, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion