Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pokémon Regions

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 of the debate was keep (by a vote of 8 to 5, counting the nomination as a vote to delete). -- BD2412 ^talk July 4, 2005 00:54 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon Regions

I am a fan of Pokémon, so this is not a spiteful nomination. This article is about the four regions in the Pokémon world, but all four of them have their own page. They are even linked to in this article. I was originally going to tidy this article up (present it in a more encyclopaedic way), but I do not think this article can give any more information than the separate articles on each region.

However, I hope that any votes to delete are because of the reasons above, and not just because it is a Pokémon article. --Daniel Lawrence 10:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "That was my first WikiPedia page. Was it good? ^^;" It was good, thoughDaniel Lawrence makes some good points. It basically lists the Gym Leader, gives examples of Pokémon, and then lists the legendaries and pseudo-legendary, (which is not a term I commonly see used.) While this doesn't seem to be covered in the main region articles, it argueably isn't needed, and if it is it can be inserted into the articles for the seperate regions. Sonic Mew 10:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rewrite per Sarg Sonic Mew 14:25, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As the number of regions is only likely to increase, it's a good idea to have an article describing them and their differences. Since the bulk of the information belongs on each region's individual page, this should be kept like a small annotated list, much like it is now. My advice, however, is to have it list the games (or whatever) where each region appears. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep but ellaborate. For example, it would be nice to have an explanation about why there are regions, how they are connected, etc. I have neer been a fan of Pokémon and I had no idea that there were "regions". Sarg 13:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly important to coverage of pokégeography. Kappa 13:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I've tryed to do a bit of cleaning up. Not included the extra info. Celestianpower 14:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It's already looking better. Sonic Mew 14:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • How's that for a better introduction? Celestianpower 15:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand in my opinion Celestianpower 14:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I'd rather merge separate region articles into this one. — mark ✎ 16:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would mean the 3 tables and 3 pictures all coming here. That seems nonsensical to me. Celestianpower 16:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The seperate region articles definately deserve their own articles. Sonic Mew 18:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, subtrivial fancruft. Martg76 21:32, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Had you read this vfd, you would have seen that we are planning on improving it. Sonic Mew 15:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please avoid personal attacks. I did read the vfd, and this is still not encyclopedia material. Martg76 22:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • That wasn't a personal attack. That was an observation, since 'cruft' is not a deletion criteria, and it won't remain subtrivial. The seperate regions get their own articles, anyway, so this is suitable material. Sonic Mew 14:11, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's extremely specific information about just another computer game, but of no relevance to anyone outside the particular game's community. I.e. it's fancruft and not encyclopedic. Martg76 22:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - at the very least, this should be kept as a page linking to the four different regions (as redirects can only have one target). The additional information looks good, though. -- Jonel | Speak 22:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. JamesBurns 06:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Make it into a briefer list, but there's no reason to delete. Almafeta 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Cruft. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Cruft' is not a deletion criteria Sonic Mew June 30, 2005 18:57 (UTC)

How many times do we have to say? --Celestianpower 30 June 2005 21:54 (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.