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)[reply]

Stunky[edit]

Stunky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (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:

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)[reply]

Section 1[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • ...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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • ...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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Perhaps it's time that it becomes just that - folklore :) Arkyan • (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is, until someone comes up with a "D&D Monster Test". -Jeske (v^_^v) 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • It'll get merged with or without an AfD. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And can be merged by an administrator even if deleted. --Deskana (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Section 2[edit]

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

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)[reply]

The loophole for pokemon species[edit]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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

Merging[edit]

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:

The following information I kept:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.
More