Wikipedia:Pokémon test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. |
The Pokémon test is symptomatic of a style of argument made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The basic premise of the argument is that a Wikipedian compares the foo currently nominated for deletion against another topic. The Wikipedian then determines if the foo in question is more or less notable than that topic, thus seemingly demonstrating the encyclopedic quality of the foo under discussion. Pokémon characters became emblematic of this argument during the course of 2005-6.
At one time, each of the over 400 Pokémon had its own page, many of which were bigger than stubs. While it would be expected that the iconic Pikachu would have its own page, some might be surprised to find out that Bellsprout once had its own page as well. Some people perceive Pokémon as inherently trivial and argued that if some such character should get an article, so should their favorite hobby/band/made-up word/whatever. In that, the PT was frequently used in error, given the amount of publicity and renown the "average Pokémon" has gotten worldwide, as part of a multinational billion-dollar enterprise.
This PT defense was often challenged because it implied a defeatist attitude toward maintaining standards for encyclopedic content (see Wikipedia:Notability). But there was also a positive view of the Pokémon argument, which holds that the articles on the allegedly trivial Pokémon turned out to be reasonable articles that fulfill all of Wikipedia's official content policies, and thus so might the subject being challenged on AfD.
Contents |
[edit] Examples of typical use
- if we can have articles for every minor character in Star Wars, Star Trek, and each of those pesky Pokemon, we can have an article about Professor Hopper.Kelly Martin 22:36, May 15, 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas J. Hopper
- More keep-worthy than any individual Pokemon. Zoe 07:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Nipp
- ...if we'll keep made up pokemon characters, write 600+ words on a character mention only in passing in a harry potter novel, I see no reason this cant be kept. ALKIVAR™
23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.a.G.e - Keep. I hate to resort to the Pokémon test, but... if freaking Golbat has its own article, freaking 593 deserves its own article. Not a ton of stuff is more notable than a number, right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 07:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/593 (number)
- Merge. The individual stops on the 510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront (TTC) and the 512 St. Clair (TTC) streetcar routes should be merged with their respective lines. If the Pokémon test can be applied to non-human characters in the respective animé, then it can also be applied to transit stops as well. Using that test, the only pure LRT stop/station in Toronto that would merit an article is Queen's Quay-Ferry Docks (TTC), as well as individual stops on the Scarborough RT. Johnny Au (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen Street (TTC)
(Emphasis added.)
[edit] Karen Importance Test
A related, and even more outdated, test was the Karen Importance Test (KIT), involving the citing of the specific Pokémon character Karen's article, for the following reasons:
- She seemed to be among the least significant of all the Pokémon characters with their own articles.
- Her article had technically survived at least one AFD (however, it was speedily closed because the article was already slated to be merged, so it was not kept on its merits).
- When the test was devised, the article looked like this.
This was no longer a valid argument (if it ever was) by the time the Pokémon Test arose, because Karen's article had been merged with other related characters.
[edit] History
The Pokémon test is believed to have stemmed from the attempt to curtail the number of individual Pokémon articles by listing them for deletion citing WP:FICT. However, although consensus formed in the Wikipedia:Poképrosal agreed that WP:FICT did actually apply to Pokémon stubs, the formation of WikiProject Pokémon (under various names), and the pledge that all stubs were to be expanded, saw the issue die down somewhat. More recently the WikiProject has worked on a merge of Pokémon species articles, rendering the test moot.
[edit] Criticism of the Pokémon test
There were three main criticisms of the Pokémon test that often arose in response to its use:
- The first and most common was that the Pokémon themselves aren't notable enough to have their own articles and that the inclusion of so many Pokémon articles was a mistake (see Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability).
- Notability of Pokémon characters may not be equivalent to the notability of other subjects; the argument implies that a parallel bar should be set for every type of article.
- Finally, an argument that an article is at least as notable as a random Pokémon is still a subjective argument on the notability of that article, rather than reliance on the primary notability criterion (multiple, independent, reliable sources). Who can be certain that Rhydon really isn't more notable than Uncle Steve's Garage Band, after all?
