Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon game mechanics

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 keep. --Coredesat 23:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon game mechanics

Clear example of failing Wikipedia policy in regards to no game guide information. The title alone lets us know that policies are being violated (game mechanics) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 10:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 22:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unless a valid argument can be made that all the information in the article is a violation of policy. Deleting this article would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, Burden of proof is on you to prove why this article should be kept. The Kinslayer 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Much of this article has to do with the anime. The title is deceiving. THL 11:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  I actually disagree. See Pokémon_game_mechanics#Power_Points and Pokémon_game_mechanics#Pok.C3.A9tchi for the more glaring examples of pure game guide info. What's more is that the Pokémon game book is actually cited as a reference. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom. PJM 11:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep game guides are not allowed, but descriptions of the way a game works (ie descriptions of the game, not instructions on how to play the game) are allowed. Cynical 11:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Cut the cruft and merge the rest. -- Ned Scott 12:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I need to think about this more... -- Ned Scott 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Pokémon is one of the most popular francises ever, and this article analizes the entire game peice by peice. Also, I can't see how someone who was playing the game would turn to this article as a game guide. Joiz ^A. Shmo 13:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. If you don't know how the battle system works, it's much harder to understand the games. -Amarkov ^babble 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep: It has some useful information (without getting technical) that would be hard to put elsewhere. --Brandon Dilbeck 15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not at all crucial to one's understanding of Pokemon at the level of coverage appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. Besides this, "[analyzing] the game peice (sic) by peice (sic)" would be on the wrong side of WP:OR. Perhaps a few sentences worth merging into the main article, but largely unnecessary and game guide-ish. GassyGuy 17:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing to weak keep now that the article has been significantly cleaned. GassyGuy 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Yeah, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so this article is a wart. ^_^ This sort of thing fits much better on Bulbapedia, the Pokemon-centric Wiki with thousands of Pokemon-related articles. Besides, descriptions of how a game works can be dealt with in the articles on the games themselves any day. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Bulbapedia is mish-mash of losely related sub-stubs, something like this covers concepts featured in a game series that is quite possibly the best selling in the world, also being discussed in hundreds of articles. Would renaming the article to something like Pokémon key game concepts? Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh, I'll admit that I wasn't fully aware of things when I made my vote. You seem to know how to fix things, so I'll save my vote for later. Cheers, Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 18:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Article was created to declutter the main Pokémon article, and goes into detail about a lot of the concepts non-fans glaze over. Things like EVs and PP should be removed, with key concepts remaining only, something I will do now. Cheers, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have removed large portions of fan/game guide info from the article. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 18:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Question If the information would not be of interest/necessary for non-fans, wouldn't that make it better suited for a specialized project like Bulbapedia than for a general encyclopaedia? GassyGuy 20:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it wouldn't be of any interest to non fans, I said quite the opposite really, the article discusses concepts like Gym Leaders, Natures and Starter Pokémom, things that are often mentioned in creature article, but are quite hard to explain in those article. This article allows them to described in the required detail for non-fans to understand them, and to keep the article on topic. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 09:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment Fair enough. Thank you for clarifying that point for me. This revision is much better than the article I originally read and I have altered my original commentary accordingly. GassyGuy 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- United961 19:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per HighwayCello. Core article at WP:PCP. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be somewhat insightful --ASDFGHJKL 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Highway's edits. - Lex 03:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article is mostly fine. It will also serve as the article which will soak up all the useful bits from other deleted articles in Category:Pokémon video game mechanics. There's enough to say about pokemon game mechanics that's not original research or game-guide-y to deserve an article. --`/aksha 04:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per HighwayCello. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 05:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While it's most likely that there's room for improvement, Highway's edits and strong keep rationale are very sound. Erik Jensen ^{(I appreciate talk!)} 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Imperfect, but imperfection is not a reason for deletion. In its current state, it's not original research and it's not a game guide (describing basic gameplay elements is not the same as telling people how to play), so this doesn't seem to violate any policies any more. — Haeleth
• Delete Needless, can be covered in the articles of the games themselves. As if we didn't have enough Pokemon junk clogging up the WIkipipes in the first place.ABigBlackMan 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this IS useful and gives info. NO REASON TO DELETE

Talk 11:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. What a compelling arguement. I can only assume by 'useful' you mean 'useful to people playing the game' therefore falling foul of WP:NOT a game guide. The Kinslayer 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The only two sources are a a review of Ruby and a review of Yellow. Tottaly irrelevent sources for the type of article this is trying to be. The Kinslayer 09:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless you want a 2Mb long Pokemon article. This information is certainly worth having, so unless you want everything in the one article these sub-articles are necessary. Cynical 11:34, 19 October 2006 (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.