Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon items

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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Cleanup during the course of the debate appears to have brought it at least roughly in line with WP:FICT and WP:LIST. Further cleanup or merging may be warranted; these editorial decisions can be worked out on the talk page. Shimeru 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon items

List of Pokémon items (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A listcruft of items from the Pokemon video games. Much better suited for a gaming and/or Pokemon wiki. On a side note (if this is kept), I hope it doesn't get changed into something like this: Recurring weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series. A massive list that has been cleaned somewhat I suppose, but now suggested splits might happen, adding more cruft/game guide (item guides) to Wikipedia. RobJ1981 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete - When listcruft gets stupid. WP:NOT a dump for indiscriminate information, and a list of items from a game is about as indiscriminate as you can get. The Kinslayer 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- per RGTraynor Astrotrain 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete or cleanup/broaden - The article as is delves a bit too far into the specifics of the items—seven paragraphs about flutes is a bit more than I can handle. It would probably be less "crufty" (as you call it) if instead the article gave a broader overview. I've noticed that members at the Pokémon Collaborative Project have recently started a trend of generally removing cruft and merging the more minor topics together (for instance, see List of Kanto locations—each of those used to have its own article). --Brandon Dilbeck 16:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The mind boggles. Then I remember that this is the internet. This page definitely falls under "an indiscriminate collection of information" in Wikipedia:NOT. GhostPirate 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I wish to point out that what one person thinks is important isn't what's important to other people and you might think it's indiscriminate but it's not. --69.91.144.164 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as indiscriminate collection of information and game guide. Otto4711 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; I don't see anything wrong with this article since M_C_Y_1008's trimming. Calling it "indiscriminate" or "cruft" is a non-argument akin to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The material is certainly verifiable and for a game series as important as Pokémon, notable. The scope of the list is narrow and objective. So why is it indiscriminate? On the other hand, the comments above probably reflect the pre-trimmed state so maybe we are evaluating different articles. — brighterorange (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Indiscriminate collection of information" is certainly nothing like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid in AFDs. WP:NOT#IINFO is a non-negotiable policy. Otto4711 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that IINFO does not actually apply here. Whether this list is an "indiscriminate collection of information", whatever that means, has nothing to do with the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Since this list does not directly fall under any of the classes of articles in WP:NOT#IINFO, you cannot cite it blindly. –Pomte 10:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does apply here, just as the policy applies to every article on wikipedia. Its not a selective policy. In fact, the first sentence of Indiscriminate Information even says 'collections of items of information' and what we have here is a collection of item information. The Kinslayer 10:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
And mroe to the point, you say 'whatever that is' in relation to an indiscriminate information, so you admit to not knowing what it even means, but the proceed to try and argue that this article isn't one. And I think the fact that this article is indiscriminate information has EVERYTHING to do with wikipedia not being a collection of indiscriminate information. If you don;t even know what you are refuting, why are you refuting it? The Kinslayer 10:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The policy applies to every article on Wikipedia, but the statement "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection" can apply here positively or negatively. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. "Collection" here applies to Wikipedia. This article is an item of information. Whether this article makes Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection is what is up to debate. –Pomte 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a linguistic issue. In the sentence "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", "collection" applies to Wikipedia. Nowhere does "collection" apply to any specific article. It should be clear what this sentence means, yet many editors shift its meaning to apply to specific articles. They probably mean "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of indiscriminate collections of information", which is not what the policy states, though it could be argued that is what it implies. I said that this article does not clearly fall under WP:NOT#IINFO because it falls under none of those 8 types of articles listed there. Please take care to note that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not the same as "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information". –Pomte 10:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I diasgree because the only way the policy can be applied is to individual articles. 'Wikipedia should not be made up of articles containing indiscriminate information such as this.' is the only way the policy can be enforceably applied. The Kinslayer 11:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The policy is about Wikipedia, and applies to individual articles that belong to its list. What exactly does "indiscriminate" information mean in terms of article content? Trivial? Loosely connected? Poorly defined scope? Isolated facts grouped in lists? –Pomte 11:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
All of the above AFAIC. Not to mention 'List of items that are only being listed because they are featured in a game and providee no useful information to anyone outside of the games community.' And please don't edit other peoples posts, even to correct spelling. I'm perfectly capable of editing my posts for spelling and clarity without assistance. The Kinslayer 11:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't edit your post. Where did you get that quote from? I can't find it. Note that the items are featured in not only games, but also anime and manga. This list could be of interest to anyone who likes any other game/anime/manga, to compare and contrast the item types and functions. If someone mentions "Pokétch" anywhere, anyone else could think, "that is the stupidest name I have ever read, let me look on Wikipedia to find out what it is". Articles get forked per WP:SUMMARY, and some are bound to be so subject-specific that they are of no interest to anyone else. This article is fairly useless to me as I am outside the community, but I have no problem with it being here. –Pomte 11:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
and some are bound to be so subject-specific that they are of no interest to anyone else. And that right there is what this article is, and why this artcle should be deleted. The Kinslayer 11:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
well then kinslayer perhaps you should start slaying any article that disusses strategy of games, any article that disucusses advanced mathematics or physics... the point i'm trying to make is that just because you don't see a use for this article isn't enough of a reason to delete it. Pomte's example is exactly why we have articles here on wikipedia about subjects like this. Many lay people out there rely on wikipedia to give them accurate information on a wide variety of topics. We like to say that these things belong elsewhere, but that's not true. A person outside the pokemon community wouldn't have the faintest idea of where else to look, and even after doing a google search might get stuck with a fansite, that not only tells them what a poketch is but then proceeds to tell them certain things like when you get each feature - strategies on how to best utilize your poketch and a wealth of other sutff they don't need to know about. For example, "The poketch's step counter ability will help with breeding, just remember to place the egg next to someone with Flame Body so it'll go faster." Now this poor person is more confused then ever. And that's if use a fansite, if they go check gamefaqs, they'll need to sift through LOADS of irrelevant info to find what they want. Wikipedia's purpose is to serve this layperson by giving them the most concise relevant information and then provide helpful external links if they wish to delve into the nitty gritty. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ironically, i actually prefer the version prior to MCY's trimming. I feel that there is significant information missing, but perhaps it is better to build from this more compact article and discuss specific changes on the talk page so we can avoid cruft-aholics from nominating it again. besides - this is not an indiscriminate list, the introduction properly defines the scope of the list according to WP:LIST and extraneous info has been removed throughout the article's history. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a junkyard for some especially bad articles about each item of this list. I merged them when I couldn't form a consensus to delete them. The Pokémon Wikiproject has come a long way since then, and hopefully we can agree that this isn't the business of an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to respectfully disagree, however at the risk of repeating myself, please refer to the above example regarding the poketch. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, most of it should be part of the gameplay description of the pokemon games and be put on the same page.....actually, reading it, I think Pokemon has too many pages to describe its gameplay anyway.DreamingLady 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Useless list. Maybe start a wiki called Wiklistia and transwiki it there? Just kidding. Anyways, we don't need a plain old list wasting Wikipedia's server space. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This lists the classes of items in Pokemon that are significant in I don't know how many notable games, shows, manga, whatever. This doesn't list every single variation of every item that appears in every one of those works, and their specific stats, thanks to the cleanup by User:M_C_Y_1008. I really doubt that anyone would use this article as a gaming guide, when detailed gaming guides should exist with specifics for each game. It has a reasonable size for a list, not unmaintable. There's probably a bunch of Pokemon articles that mention these items and attempt to describe them, so a full description here serves as the central place for those other mentions to link to. Nothing in WP:LIST or WP:NOT directly applies to this sort of article, so those !votes citing them only have incomplete arguments. –Pomte 10:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment A) they aren't votes, they are opinions, and B) WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information is still a valid concern about the article, regardless of whether you consider it a complete argument or not. Maybe you should try explaining WHY exactly the policy of WP:NOT doesn't apply to this article in particular when it's a policy that covers every article on wikipedia. In fact, the first sentence of Indiscriminate Information even says 'collections of items of information' and what we have here is a collection of item information. The Kinslayer 10:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I take "!votes" to mean "not votes (but this is the most convenient way of referring to them)", and "opinions" isn't too hot a term to describe them either. I agree that WP:NOT is a valid concern as long as rationale is given. By WP:NOT not applying to this article directly, I meant WP:NOT doesn't mention any class of articles that definitely contains this specific article. Sorry for any confusion. –Pomte 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Kinslayer, do you really believe that "collection of items of information" means the same thing as "collection of information about items?" I thought you were joking above (and it is an amusing twist of wording) but having repeated it now it sounds like you are serious. Is it because they both use the word "item" (in different senses) or because it is "information"? Obviously encyclopedia articles can have information. Anyway, to reiterate: calling an article "indiscriminate" is too vague, and in this case I simply don't understand what you mean. Why is it indiscriminate? — brighterorange (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Because it is listed with no apparnt thought to why it should be here beyond 'it's in Pokemon and should be listed on Wikipedia', look at the references too. All of them are magazine guides, instruction manuals and strategy guides. Pokemon may well be notable (or IS in fact), but do we honestly need to know Pokemon contains potions, vitamins etc etc? What would be next, 'List of Flora and Funghi in Pokemon'or 'List of terrain types in Pokemon'? The Kinslayer 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
there is very good reason for this article beyond "b/c it's in Pokemon" The most apt description for this would be a glossary rather than list because it's a grouping of items that are oft referenced throughout the 500+ articles on pokemon in general (e.g. the article on Feebas really shouldn't delve into the detail on Pokéblock that this article already has - i.e. it shouldn't talk about what generation it was introduced in, or it's relation to Pofin). The items themselves feature not only in the video games, but also the anime and manga... so would a condensed version (that would still prolly need to be split off per WP:SS) be put in at Pokémon, Pokémon (anime), or Pokémon (manga) (ok... so manga prolly wouldn't have such a prob fitting in relevant parts)? Some items (e.g. Poké ball and Pokédex) are notable enough to have their own articles and would definitely then deserve some sort of page to be grouped on as per the guidlines at WP:LIST. Some items, like TMs and HMs, require too much explanation to be easily mentioned within the VAST amount of articles that wikilink to the applicable section. Your criticism of the references is ill-deserved because they are perfectly suited to articles of a non-scholarly nature (i was going to give a link to WP:RS but it appears the page has undergone a massive overhaul). -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Based on the cultural significance of Pokémon and the importance of collecting items within the hugely successful video games, card games, movies, television series(es), manga, etc., I am arguing that yes, we can afford an article on some of its most salient items. The article is not perfect, but that should be addressed via cleanup, not by deletion. Do you think that scholars fifty years from now will never be interested in this stuff? People already write thousands of scholarly articles about it. Are you saying that published strategy guides and magazines are not reliable sources? They seem to me to fit the criteria. — brighterorange (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm quite tired of hearing "Because a few anime editors agreed with me at this xyz project there is a consensus." - It's a moot argument. The list is sourced and meets WP:LIST, not to mention it is of a notable television series and finally WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 23:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SUMMARY, WP:LIST, WP:POKEMON, WP:NOT#PAPER. Actually, keep because there is no reason to delete it. Listcruft is the reason given, I guess they mean WP:NOT#Wikipedia is_not_an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not indiscriminate, and it's not a game guide. I wish a real reason had been given so that I could address it. Hopefully I guessed what you meant by listcruft. - Peregrine Fisher 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • strong keep. indiscriminate means only one point of view. If you can find one bias line in writing on the page i'll be amazed. As it said in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT we shouldn't be deleting pages just because we don't like the subject. There are people who still like this page. It is not a list because it doesn't have bullets or numbers. Also it displays true fact, so what is wrong with it being in an encylopedia. I strongly support people who want to keep this page running and edit out mistakes. - User:mroberholt 11:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    That's not what indiscriminate means at all. Indiscriminate means "without consideration for the value or merit."
    Now, I love me some Pokémon. I wouldn't spend so much time working on these articles if I didn't. But this is an unsourced list of random factoids gleaned from all different parts of the Pokémon franchise, and that isn't what this project is about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    I think gleaning "from all different parts of the Pokémon franchise" is exactly what this project is about, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Exceptions's second example which starts "Gogosaurus's first appearance." - Peregrine Fisher 10:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Go back and read WP:WAF again, though. We have these descriptions of a fictional world in order to support discussion of that fictional world as an artefact in the real one. It's not necessary to understand what a Technical Machine or a Pokéflute does; this isn't useful context, just indiscriminate info on the fictional world just because we can. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Is it necessary? That depends on how thoroughly you want to understand Pokemon. I guess the keeps want to help people understand it all the way down to Pokéflutes, and the deletes don't. If we ever want to help people understand Pokéflutes, though, this is our chance. It's written in out-of-universe style. - Peregrine Fisher 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, but where are the reliable sources independent of the subject written about either Pokéflutes individually or items in the Pokémon series collectively? All you're going to be able to find are fansites (far below the bar of reliability) or passing mentions as part of a larger whole in gme guides. Why not, then, give these only passing mention as part of a larger whole where relevant, since this is a minor aspect of a major subject? We should mirror the sources, not seek to distill them into new, original forms. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    Isn't that why this is a list of items, instead of a seperate page on each item? I think this information didn't fit in the original Pokemon page, and the items didn't deserve to have 10 seperate pages, so here we are. - Peregrine Fisher 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Peregrine has hit the nail on the head. Those voting keep feel that for the topic to be comprehensive, a list like this is neccessary, while those voting to delete see it as a bunch of trivia thrown on a page b/c "I LOVE EVERYTHING POKEMON". Personally, I'd argue the same points for a page discussing the the different mushrooms/shells/bombs in the mario franchise or some other RPG. The only one to actually say why they feel the list is indiscriminate has failed to provide a counter argument to points presented against them. If AMIB has more, i'd like to here them. as an extension of description for the purposes of aiding and understanding sources independent of the subject are not required as per WP:RS - primary sources. This is allowed to remain an independent article as per WP:SS and the precendent of glossaries on wikipedia. As Peregrine poined out, we are only giving them passing mention, not adding anything more than what can be easily confirmed. It mentions the flutes, states that they are typically a MacGuffin that gets Snorlax out of your way, gives a brief overview of when they were introduced, and notes that it was used in Pokemon Snap. This is relevant interesting information - what anyone would expect to find if they were to be curious on the topic. You (those who wish to delete the article) are making it sound like it talks about the importance of Leftovers in NetBattle. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 12:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
actually according to www dot dictionary dot com indiscriminate means not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity. When you select something arn't you taking "only one point of view." I actually did get the right meaning then of indiscrimate then and this list of pokemon items doesn't take only one point of view. Right. user:mroberholt 7:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC) — mroberholt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
at wikipedia when we refer to an indiscriminate collection of info, we are referring to the idea that that not every last bit of information (my hair color) needs to be included. This becomes extended to topics in fiction-based media by only including information that is essential to understanding the concepts introduced, and information relevant to the notability of the subjects. For example, if I were to say that, "Gardevoir has a special attack of 125 which is higher than that of the recent legendary Arseus at 120, but it is still outclassed by Alakazam who's base special attack is 135..." then proceed to tell you how it would still be possible to obtain a higher sp. att stat than some Alakazam due to EV training and that most beneficial nature is something that lowers attack... see where this is going? It would have been enough to say that, "Gardevoir have among the highest Special Attacks in the Pokemon universe." We need to be disciminating in the kind of info we include, we should be selective in what gets included because most information (like all of Ronald Reagan's past phone numbers) is not relevant enough to the topics at hand. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
We exclude the specific stats of Pokémon because they are of interest only as guides for users with specialist interest. How is a bulleted list detailing the exact numbers of Hidden Machines, the different versions of fictional Pokémon PDA, or each variety of flute in the Pokémon series any different? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
We discuss the number of HMs because it changed througout the history of the game and to answer the question of "Well what changed?" we divulge that info, it's also important that we give the names because some were removed and then readded later on. This is information of interest to anyone who wants to know how things changed throughout the series. While it would be reasonable to include this info under "Changes" on each generation's main page, this offers a concise overview that allows the reader to take it all in without having to load the five different articles. The same argument could essentially be made for the Pokegear/PDA/Poketch stuff, and I've already explained the reasoning behind the Pokeflute. Specialist interest is a term that could be used to AFD massive amounts of articles on Politcs, Mathematics, and Physics. We exclude numbers for all pokemon because they'd add no value to the article. A lay person can't take anything away from that number other than "Oh, that's high" or "Oh, that's low" and additionally we'd have to tell them it's high or low, so there's no reason having the number anyways - we can leave the # out and they still learn just as much. But you leave out description of an item that is oft mentioned - Pokeflute is used to wake up Snorlax, Pokeflute's function was duplicated in the anime in Snorlax's first appearance, Pokeflute has an incarnation in the Pokémon Trading Card Game and Pokémon Snap, Pokeflute was replaced with Pokeflute radio station in GSC, utilizing the Pokegear's (oh wait, what's that?) radio, Pokeflute was later replaced by Blue flute in RSE - leave it out and the reader's understanding of the item is drastically affected. Indiscriminate info would include how many steps of ash you need to get the Blue flute, what route the guy is located on. For a lay reader it wouldn't matter if we said 100 or 200 steps, Rt. 10 or Rt. 15 - their understanding of Pokeflute isn't affected so it's extraneous, irrelevant info. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment this seems like a dump for information on various items in the Pokemon universe. I makes no difference to me whether this article is deleted or kept. 0-172 Talk to me 17:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, notable. Everyking 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Notable article Ixistant 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    This is not a vote. Would "Delete, non-notable" be convincing to you? Merely asserting the conclusion that it's notable does nothing to move forward the discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • at the risk of alienating those who agree with my position, AMIB is right, it would be more constructive to say what makes the topic notable. However to be fair, many articles get deleted with nothing more than "NN" or "Foo-cruft" as arguments (Pokémon spoofs), especially when the article is only at a stub stage 4 days after its creation and it is reasonable to assume it could be expanded or improved based on cursory searches (i've seen admins speedy things like Diphallic terata as "patent nonsense"... wiki is not censored, but that link leads to an article some might find "offensive"), it's understandable why some might think that favorable "votes" are acceptable in place of discussion. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but trim a little bit further. "Listcruft" is certainly not a good reason for deletion, especially standing on its own. Granted, parts of the article are still a little too in-depth (look at the PokéFlute's section), but it's been much improved from before, and all the items currently on the list are arranged in fairly large groups that are at least moderately notable within the games (and/or anime) themselves.~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Only possible sources are game guides/manuals, thus the result article is a game guide/manual. Its notability is not in question imo, but this is not encyclopedic material. Wickethewok 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So if the only possible source for an article is a newspaper, then the article must be a newspaper? I fail to see the logic in your statement. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • No, if the only possible sources for an article are newspaper articles, then the article will be descriptive, fairly neutral, and will lack in long-term historical impact.
        The qualities of the sources will be reflected in the article, and game guides will focus on information required for playing the game, not information required for a general, broad understanding. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:FICT, which suggests that content on minor characters, places, and concepts should be included in a list that is separate from the article if it becomes too long. Regarding WP:NOT a game guide, statements in this article should describe the objects in question; they should not give tips as to how to use them. The use of game guides as references does not automatically make this article a game guide itself, just as the use of news sources does not make an article news, and the use of government reports does not make an article such a report. This is how I see it from a WP-policy standpoint. I have never directly dealt with anything Pokemon-related (except on WP), so I can't comment as to how "major" or "minor" these objects/concepts are. Please correct me if I'm making some erroneous assumption regarding what these objects in fact are. However, even if minor, I believe the content qualifies for inclusion. -- Black Falcon 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, it does; the only part that goes beyond simple description is the flute section, which has already been mentioned, and can be easily fixed. ~e.o.t.d~ (蜻蛉の目•話す•貢献) 08:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_items_9e91.html"