Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stunky

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 A BIG CONFUSED WHATEVER. The nom doesn't want this deleted any more. The delete arguments are mostly amenable to a merge. The keeps mostly conflate coverage of Pokemon with coverage of this Pokemon or kind of suck. Teggles has merged this to a list of Pokemon, something WP:PCP has been slowly working on for a while, and discussing that on talk or at WT:PCP seems like it'll be a lot more productive than letting this messy, meandering AFD go on any longer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stunky

Stunky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Oh boy.

I am nominating Stunky for deletion. Stunky is one of 493 fictional species in Pokémon, a multi-billion-dollar Japanese children's media franchise. The key part of that description there is "multi-billion-dollar". Because of the franchise's proven notability, it is assumed that everything appearing in it is notable for an article.

In relation to the Pokémon itself, not the franchise, the current article is composed of only:

• Original research (two paragraphs)
• Plot summary (two sections)

The first one violates policies WP:NOR and WP:V, which I don't think is disagreed with. The second is a violation of another policy, WP:NOT - it clearly reads "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot".

An argument is that this is only a condition, and currently can (not in the future can) be changed. The problem is that, through my research, it can't. WP:N states: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I have found no secondary reliable sources that discuss any real-world context such as creation or reception for "Stunky". This is the key question: do they exist? Without proving existence of secondary sources describing real-world context, there is no reason for keeping (assuming the above mentioned arguments hold their weight).

One thing that I really do not want to see is people voting keep because 1. It has a fair amount of Google hits, 2. The Pokemon franchise is notable, therefore this is, 3. Other Pokemon articles are existent, therefore this one should exist/they should not exist. There are quite easily countered with a link to WP:ATA, but here's explanations for all: 1. WP:N states notability is distinct from popularity, 2. Britney Spears is notable, but that doesn't mean her vagina is notable - and I guarantee there are websites devoted to it... the concepts are analogous, 3. Each article holds different levels of notability, see previous answer, in addition, Wikipedia is a work in progress.

Whew. Now that I'm finished, have fun discussing.

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: I want to stress that you do not base the result on the amount of votes, or the amount of agreements. This is normally followed, but often it isn't done well. --Teggles 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Stunky 1.1 Section 1 1.2 Section 2 1.3 The loophole for pokemon species 2 Merging

[edit] Section 1

• Delete: I keep reading my nomination and feel it is missing something, but nevertheless, it should hold up. --Teggles 07:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Redirect: The article has been merged to List of Pokémon (421-440). --Teggles 06:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Nothing is likely to change the consensus that all Pokemon characters are notable. --Eastmain 07:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus is not permanent, especially when that consensus is ill-founded or does not exist at all. Your reason for deletion is unfair, I have explained exactly why this article is not notable and you ignored it, saying "keep" because a select group disagree for unstated or nonexistent reasons. The notion that there is "consensus" that all Pokemon species are notable seems like a good case of illogic, I found it highly unlikely a group assessed every single Pokemon article to check for notability - it's actually impossible, considering there are no supplied sources for this article to prove notability - I think they may have misunderstood the concept of notability. Notability is about significant coverage in secondary sources, not importance or popularity, nor notability of its parent. --Teggles 07:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into List of Pokémon. That is what the guideline WP:FICTION recommends; and is does so for good reasons. Notability of this individual character is not established, and probably impossible to establish.--B. Wolterding 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• The only information to be merged is an appearance in Pokemon Diamond (without plot) and very small (almost plot-less) appearance in the anime. I do believe it appeared in the trading card game, but every Pokemon has, so that doesn't need a mention. So judging from that, it actually appears it has already been merged sufficiently. (edit: Looks like I'm wrong, there does need to be some more merging, but the information is so little that the article can be deleted with no problems) --Teggles 08:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I think the article could easily be condensed into 1-2 paragraphs and then merged as a section into List of Pokémon or a similar article; just like the famous List of minor Star Wars characters. Notability is not needed for that, primary sources would suffice.--B. Wolterding 08:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Problem is, List of Pokémon does not include any information beyond Nat'l Pokédex number, regional Dex nos., Japanese name, English name, and what it evolves from. A merge into List of Pokémon is the equivalent of a "Delete" argument. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, you misunderstood me; I did not propose merging into a row of the table, I proposed merging the article into a section, in expansion of the list article. Actually, I noticed that someone has been starting to orgainze things like this, as in List of Pokémon (1-20). Why not create the 421-440 article and merge to there? --B. Wolterding 08:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Because WP:POKE isn't there yet. Try asking for a Baron von ArsefaceStunky Evolutionary line article at WP:POKE/Layout. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, a "Stunky evolutionary line" article would not be a good alternative. Stunky's evolution is just as non-notable. --Teggles 08:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• The same can be said for every Poke excepting Pikachu, Mewtwo, Jigglypuff, Pichu, Raichu, and Lugia. Mudkip and Bidoof are debatable owing to meme disputes. Thus, we have a conundrum - Nuke just Stunky for noncompliance and ignore the rest (Pleases WP:POKE and vandals), or nuke everything that is noncompliant (pleases everyone except for the vandals and WP:POKE). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 08:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Each Pokemon has a different level of notability, and each one will need to be decided on its own. There is no obligation to throw away similar articles. --Teggles 09:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yet, most of them fall into "noncompliant". Take Whismur, recently gutted by User:Amarkov, as an example. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 09:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• The idea of grouping three or four Pokemon articles into one isn't exactly the best plan. I supported it myself because it "cuts down" the amount of Pokemon articles - we are in a state where there is so much ignoring of policies that alternatives need to be made. Alternatives that don't make any sense. Think about it, how does combining a mere three or four non-notable articles create notability? They still have no real-world context. --Teggles 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Again, nor does most every other Pokémon. You can't remove one for noncompliance and turn a blind eye to the rest, Teggles. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• ...I have already said that the others will be tested for notability. I'm not going to ignore anything.--Teggles 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• What's the point of testing them? I can guarantee you that 75+% of the Poke articles will fail. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• ...and the blind "keep" voters (most haven't read my nomination text) guarantee that all Pokemon are notable. Both of these are assumptions, and simply aren't fair. --Teggles 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• I know that not all Pokes are notable. Hell, barely any are notable. That's not an assumption, it's a fact of life. That's why I say "remove ones that are noncompliant all at once instead of being selective". I'm amazed, however, that Stunky made it here before Whismur. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• well at least whismur's appeared in anime and is part of a running gag, a pathetic reason, but hopefully it consoles you, i know how much you hate whismur.... :D -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 20:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• I don't hate Whismur; rather, I'm amazed Stunky made it here first after Amarkov gutted Whismur. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 20:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, failing WP:N due to lack of secondary coverage. I am changing my vote, since the above discussion shows that there is currently no article it could reasonably be merged into. However, a redirect to List of Pokémon would be appropriate. If someone wants to merge at a later time, the article could be userfied. --B. Wolterding 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete there is consensus that many/most pokemon are notable, but I'd like to see someone proving this one? I get 11 unique Ghits for "stunky+pokemon". most are linked to ebay auctions. Ohconfucius 08:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You shouldn't put search terms in quotation marks like that. Nobody's likely to write a sentence containing "stunky" and "Pokémon" right after the other. For the record, my Google search brought back 20,300 hits, but I don't endorse Google hit tests. --Brandon Dilbeck 08:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. All Pokemon are notable, whether the franchise personally "offends" you or not. Every other 400-something Pokemon has its own page, why wouldn't this one? --Sdornan 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you cite a guideline or policy on which your "speedy keep" is based? --B. Wolterding 15:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You claim all Pokemon are notable, but have given no reason for this. I established what notability is; it's the presence of significant coverage in reliable sources. For each Pokemon to have an individual article, each one must have significant coverage in reliable sources. You have not shown anything that fulfills notability, and therefore not "all" Pokemon are notable. I would like to add that I never said the franchise "offends" me, even though you quoted the word. Your claim this should have a page if other Pokemon do, but I have already talked about that argument in my nomination, I am disappointed that you did not read it. --Teggles 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect. There is no reason to have an article for every single Pokemon. However it's a reasonable search term and redirecting it to the list could be valuable. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral You realise that if this article is deleted, we'll have blown a piece of wikipedia folklore, the Wikipedia:Pokemon test, completely out of the water, right? JulesH 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time that it becomes just that - folklore :) Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That is, until someone comes up with a "D&D Monster Test". -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As non-notable as if it were an article about someone's pet of the same name. Per nomination and because there are no independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of this individual Pokemon character. Could also be a redirect to merge to List of Pokemon characters. I agree that the Pokemon franchise is notable, but that does not justify separate articles about each molecule of the franchise. Edison 15:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The Britney argument has me convinced. --- RockMFR 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Into List of Pokémon. If this can't be merged per the likely delete consensus then that will not only screw up the discussed merger big time (as we will be missing 1 Pokemon as per a delete consensus), but the other Pokemon will be fair game as well. FunPika 17:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Creation of articles is supposed to be based on sources for the topic, not sources for a related topic. This article does nothing to establish notability, and without reliable sources, which "Serebii" and the like are not, "delete" is the only thing we can do. Jay32183 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 18:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Merge in process. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• If a merge is in progress and you agree with it, wouldn't a better vote be "Merge"? --Teggles 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It'll get merged with or without an AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And can be merged by an administrator even if deleted. --Deskana (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So we'll delete it, merge it, and then turn the article into a redirect? Or will we just delete it, merge the history, and then people will be met with a nonexistent article instead of being redirected to the merge target? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think some of you guys are missing the point of Wikipedia. If people are going to search for it, there should be an article on it (within reason of course). If you go to any other major video game there will be articles on each of the main characters. It just so happens that there are 497 (or something) main characters in the game. Pokémon is collective. What if some kid wants to find out information about a Pokemon? They'll probably go to Wikipedia, considering that's where everyone goes to find out information like that. Seriously, if you hit the random article button theres a high chance you'll find something less notable than this. This is what irritates me about some of the people who 'contribute' to Wikipedia. They're too busy looking at the rules, constantly linking to 'WP:whatever', than to look at the bigger picture. It's notable. Its from the biggest selling handheld game of the decade. I'm sure out the 20000+ hits on google there will be sources. Look for them. --88.111.242.169 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Tell me, where may I find "the point of Wikipedia"? If people search for it, they can still be redirected to a merged article. Also, just because there are articles on X does not mean there are articles on Y. Check up on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Your statement "Pokemon is a collective" is a good one - this is why they do not all belong in individual articles, because they only achieve notability as a collective list; i.e. in one article. ...lastly, you claim it's notable. It's not notable, I explained clearly what notability is: it's significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You have provided 0. "20000+ hits" on Google is popularity, which the notability page clearly says is distinct from notability. You need to prove notability, not say "you're sure". "Its from the biggest selling handheld game of the decade"... indeed it is, I countered this point in my nomination, I would like you to read it - the pavement of Viridian City doesn't have an article, but according to you it's notable because Pokemon is notable. --Teggles 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe you are missing one point about Wikipedia: It is not "Pokepedia", not a description of fictional worlds; it is an encyclopedia about the real world. Fictional topics can be covered, but only if they have sufficient real-world context (or, more precisely, if they pass the notability criteria). See also WP:FICTION. --B. Wolterding 13:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep pending a merge. Article is neither original research nor a plot summary. No less "notable" than Final Fantasy characters, which the nominator seems to be fine with. —Xezbeth 19:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, people have misused the term notability. Final Fantasy characters have significant coverage in reliable sources - they are notable. Those that don't are being merged. Stunky, however, has no reliable sources and is therefore not notable. --Teggles 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion. Considering the primary sources for both sets of articles are video games then I can't see how they can be different. Of course FF characters have nothing to do with this AfD, I'm just trying to understand your motive for nominating this. —Xezbeth 20:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Because there are reliable secondary sources for the character articles. Squall Leonhart for example, and when articles were not notable, see Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. There are no reliable secondary sources for this article, and no one has proven otherwise. --Teggles 20:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To back up Teggles, Secondary sources are used to determine notability. Primary sources, although useful for confirming basic data, cannot establish notability. Jay32183 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment While Google is not notability, it might be of interest to note that stunky+pokemon gets only 315 unique English language hits [1]. You would've expected far more than that for a notable character from this franchise. EliminatorJR ^Talk 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no proof of notability to show it deserves a separate article. Kwsn^(Ni!) 23:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and It's about time! Sadly, the WP:POKEMON philosophy was a Wikipedia experiment that went horribly wrong, with articles about cute little Pokemon merchandise wiping out things like mathematics, linguistics, philosophy, politics, history, etc. Sorry, Stunky. Go back to your website, and take Porywhirl and Ekans with ya. Mandsford 23:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon me, I thought that we weren't a paper encyclopedia? Pokémon articles don't "[wipe] out" articles on any of those topics any more than the Benny Hill article pushes out the Saxophone article. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable Pokemon, easily sourced by the (extensive) coverage of the Pokemon Diamond and Pearl games, which means plenty of reliable sources exist. This is part of an active, regularly edited series of articles overseen by an active Wikiproject with 160+ participants. Many Pokemon species articles have achieved Good Article status (many of those that did less notable than this one IMHO). Deleting one out of the blue would create a pointless and unnecessary hole in an otherwise strong series of articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with the notion that Stunky is a notable Pokémon. It may be notable IN Pokémon, but a particularly notable Pokémon period? No. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You claim notability and that it is easy to source due to primary sources: notability is based on SIGNIFICANT coverage in SECONDARY sources. I reiterate: it is not notable until you show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - all I need is one. In addition, this is not a "strong" series of articles as they are heavily plot based. The main idea of fictional articles is to provide real-world coverage (e.g. development, reception) - none of the articles have this! --Teggles 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There are secondary sources, loads of them. I've put a small list of them below. Where have you been looking? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The nomination so far should definitely not end in "no consensus" or "keep" because no one has proven any notability: however, when a Google search is performed for stunky pokemon, and the terms "Pokedex" "Boards", "Forum" and "eBay" are removed, there is an actual total (not predicted total) of 166 results. [2] I have not found any significant coverage in a reliable source from that search, so it's reasonably proven that Stunky is not notable. --Teggles 04:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I resent your attempts at trying to game this AfD. Please knock it off and let the thing run its course. —Xezbeth 05:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Since this is a discussion, not a vote, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that everyone saying "keep" is doing so against policy and guideline. In fact, it should be done so that this type of faulty reasoning does not continue in the future. Jay32183 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Trying to influence the closing admin by falsely using google is not discussing. —Xezbeth 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment would someone kindly explain why this is a "false use of google". It would appear to be a personal attack, and thus I think warrants an explanation. Ohconfucius 06:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Because he's deliberately changing the parameters until it matches his supposition that its not notable. But seeing as you're accusing me of personal attacks, I'm done here. Don't bother replying as I wont read it. —Xezbeth 07:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
            • The amount of Google results is not what defines notability. I changed the parameters to make it easier to find reliable sources; I removed forums, eBay results, and Pokedex clones from the game. No one ever changes their vote, it's not tht I reply to change the voter's mind. I reply to show the truth (or what I think is the truth, as it may be). --Teggles 08:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

KEEP AS STRONG AS A MACHAMP! Cool Pokemon. Skunk. Nothing we had before. --Riley the Kirlia 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, I'm not sure whether your comment above was just meant to be joky; if not, I would like to direct you to the article Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --B. Wolterding 13:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sources For those clamouring for sources, I really have to wonder what method of research you've been using, because sources are easy to find, with a number of published books covering every aspect of the franchise. Here's just a few I found within a few minutes on Stunky, I'm sure more are out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Ultimate National Pokedex (ISBN 1598120190)
  • Official Nintendo Pokemon Diamond Version & Pearl Version Player's Guide (ISBN 1598120182)
  • Pokemon Diamond & Pearl: Prima Official Game Guide (ISBN 0761556346)
  • Pokemon Diamond & Pearl Pokedex (PRima) (ISBN 0761556354)
  • Beckett Unofficial Guide to Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl (ISBN 1930692676)
  • Pokemon Diamond and Pearl: Future Press Scenario Guide (ISBN 3937336958)
  • Pokemon Sinnoh Handbook (upcoming) (ISBN 0545000726)
• In addition, many of the magazines and other press that covered the Diamond & Pearl releases also covered the new species as well, for example Nintendo Powers May 2007 issue. There are, of course, many more, including foreign-language sources (many Pokemon publications are Japanese-language only). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We aren't looking for sources on Pokemon, we're looking for sources on Stunky. We are also looking for sources independant of the subject. Nintendo makes Stunky, so sources published by Nintendo do not establish notability. Jay32183 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, we're looking for out-of-universe content related to Stunky, which will probably not be included in player's guides etc. (But if you found some and could briefly quote an example, that would be good.) --B. Wolterding 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as the Pokémon project in the throes of creating evolutionary line articles to somewhat satiate notability issues. hbdragon88 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section 2

• Comment WP:FICT#Fiction_in_Wikipedia states that "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list resides in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is created.". There is no proof of said pokemon being a major character. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with you entirely and would like to support your point. For me, the problem seems to be that there's currently no list where to merge it to. (Or maybe there's just to many of them and I can't figure out the right one?) --B. Wolterding 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • One of the merger proposals that the Pokemon project threw around was to create lists of 20, such as List of Pokémon (1-20) (which itself has gone through AFD twice), for a total of 25 pages. But it shifted to creationg evolutionary lines for those who evolve (such as Porygon evolutionary line), with other mergers for lonesome Pokémon (such as Kanto legendary Pokémon for Mew/Mewtwo and Zapdos/Articuno/Moltres). hbdragon88 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think the evolutionary lines would be better than the list going 1-20 since the lines would be split up in places. Kwsn^(Ni!) 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Maybe. But as A Man In Black put it, that would be about 200 (well I suppose 150 or so, his was because he assumed lone Pokemon would remain separatea rticles) articles with sourcing problems instead if ~20 (since D/P hadn't come out at the time). hbdragon88 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to discuss the merger, go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout. A deletion discussion is not the place to debate these mergers. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment However many books the owner of the franchise prints, they are not "independent" sufficiently to prove notability. (The books being "all about Pokemon" suggests more of a directory listing than substantial coverage, but I do not have access to the books to determine the extent and depth of coverage). People have been talking for months if not years about appropriate merger of the minor characters. If there is not a list then be bold and create one. Edison 17:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Only 2 of the book sources I cited were published by Nintendo (indeed some make very clear ther "unofficial" status), and only one is a general Pokemon guide. The others are specific to the Diamond / Pearl expansion, and have significant coverage of the new species from the new games. I definitely suggest at least flipping through the books in question before dismissing them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
    • All of them have 'Pokemon' or 'Pokedex' in their name, which suggests the book is a Pokemon guide, rather than, say, an anime guide or mascot guide that finds Stunky notable outside of it's context in Pokemon. That's the meaning of independant, not independant of nintendo's ownership, but independant of its relation to other Pokemon. A Coro-Coro insert including Stunky would be worth more than them, since Coro-Coro isn't owned by Nintendo, and covers things other than Pokemon.Spriteless 19:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per the plan to merge by evolutionary line, but then later merge the lines that aren't notable into lists. Mass page killing makes editors angry, better to ease them into the idea of a reduction so fewer people get disenfranchised and leaves Wikipedia. Don't bite the oldbees? They are just as valueable as newbies, after all. :P Spriteless 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

keep. It's still a notable character, regardless of how small. I mean honestly. Toastypk 03:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:N. Notability is determined by being the subject of multiple, reliable, secondary sources idependant of subject. Jay32183 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The loophole for pokemon species

There happens to be a very good reason why each species has received seperate treatment. In reponse to everyone throwing around the WP:N guideline (which until recently was only an essay) like its policy, i'd like to point to WP:SS. A guideline that's been part of wikipedia for much longer. The premise is that when discussing a topic, in order to give fair, comprehensive coverage to that topic, we end up with a lot of info on one aspect. This information in and of itself is verifiable, encyclopedic, and relevant to understanding the subject as a whole. We can write a lot because Wikipedia is not paper. Unfortunately, sometimes that one aspect becomes cumbersome and can dominate the rest of the article. So we split it off into it's own article. This is why WP:N and WP:SS are only guidelines, one will never be policy because it would contradict the other. This is a case for WP:SS, not WP:N. It's unrealistic to get rid of Stunky, and all other pokemon that can't pass WP:N, because the alternative of having a huge descriptive list of 400+ pokemon, which not only gives bsic info but also any encyclopedic info associated with them, would be hugely inaccessible and a cumbersome monster in it's own right. The old way of dealing was giving each pokemon its own page. the suggestion to merge this to Stunky evolutionary line is following WP:SS. i'm not saying we ignore all rules, but judiciously apply the most appropriate ones. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 20:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Summary style is not about forking off new pages that don't meet the inclusion criteria. WP:N and WP:SS should both be followed. Both are easily followed when you observe WP:WAF. Most of the Pokemon do not have encyclopedic information right now. It's all plot summaries and game guides, which violates WP:NOT. Merging isn't about sticking all the bad information in one place, it's about preserving good inforamtion that can't stand on its own. Here, the problem isn't the amount of information, it's the type of information. Merging may not be appropiate if the target of the merge does not observe policy and guideline. Jay32183 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

'compromise that guideline back there said not entirely plot summary. No fictional subject can be understood without some degree of plot summary or the equivalent, and the most staidly academic books include them. Articles without any run the risk of being deleted for lack of context! The virtue of an article with sections is that some of the sections do the plot, and the rest of the article discusses it--generally there will enough sources to support one article's worth of discussion, though not perhaps a discussion for each section as a separate article. I couldn't care less about this particular subject one way or another. But I do care about the general waste of time and effort from these repetitive discussions. The best way to consensus is compromise. Or is the point to get consensus--but only to exactly what one wanted? The very best end to an AfD is a compromise that results in overall better articles. Articles should come out of here not kept or deleted, but improved. If there is anything that can be generally accepted, we can close this chapter, and use it as a model for many similar, and thus improve these articles and the encyclopedia more generally. DGG 03:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

When the issue is that there are no reliable, secondary sources, improvement is not possible. Jay32183 04:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

I have merged all information on Stunky to List of Pokémon (421-440)#Stunky that does not violate the WP:GAMEGUIDE or WP:OR, but I did not redirect due to this discussion. The actual content of the article is a stub. The following information was removed in the merge:

• "Copy-paste" paragraph that introduces the Pokemon series -- no longer necessary
• Name's meaning -- removed due to WP:OR
• "Technique" information -- violates WP:GAMEGUIDE

The following information I kept:

• Biological characteristics -- only one sentence was there
• Mention of presence in Pokemon Diamond only
• Appearance in anime -- only one sentence was there

Really, there is no more available information to tell. It has no plot in the video games, and a tiny bit of plot in the anime. This makes it clear the creature is a minor character. We have generally confirmed there is currently no real-world information available. Looking at this, I just fail to see any reason to keep the article.

I will be changing my vote to redirect, and I hope this is incentive for others to. Merging into a two-creature "evolution line" is not a good idea, Skuntank is just as bad. --Teggles 06:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect per the above, this is a sensible compromise and I dare say a very significant number of these pages could be dealth with the same way. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:41, 28 June 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.