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 This is pointless. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whismur[edit]

Whismur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable Pokemon. It has never actually been written about outside the anime, card game, and video games, and even in those places, it's not very notable at all. Lack of secondary sources other than Pokedex entries (and Bulbapedia, which hardly counts as more) doesn't help. People who close this as a speedy keep with no discussion will be eaten by Grues. Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't the majority of Pokemon show up only in the anime, card game, and video games? As Pokemon wikipedia entries go - this one looks fairly decent. It may be obscure but they can't all be pikachu --Eqdoktor 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this one is incredibly obscure. Few Pokemon cards for it, none of which are ever actually used, and not even the main subject of an anime episode, like some others. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, no reliable sources (just a list of fan sites), no evidence of any real notability. Yes, I'm a aware of WP:POKEMON, but it's high time that flawed bit of circular reasoning was laid to rest. Xtifr _tälk 20:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, why don't you go and nominate every other pokemon article except for pikachu for deletion then?--Ac1983fan 21:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strawman arguments are bad. Don't make them. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just saying... I would guess 99% of the pokemon articles are what you described in your nomination reason. so, it's all delete or this one stays, I would think. (Except, of course, pikachu, probably bulbasaur, and maybe torchic).--Ac1983fan 21:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Pokémon only exist within the anime, card game, and video games, and this one is just a specific one of the near 500 that currently exist. Just because this one has not appeared in many of either of the media does not mean that it should be deleted. There are Pokémon that have only appeared in two of the three media, but that does not mean that their article should be deleted either. It has been a goal of the WikiProject for Pokémon to get presentable articles on all of the species, and this is one of them. To compare, some relatively non-notable Pokémon articles are good, and at least two articles are featured (these Pokémon are somewhat more prevalent in the metaseries, though).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't deny that most species articles are good, or could become good. Being a member of the Wikiproject, I had better know that. But Whismur simply is never mentioned. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whismur#In the animé states Whismur was featured in #315 "A PokéBlock Party," which it is the Pokémon of the Day for that episode. More information on the episode itself is here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • <sarcasm>Oh, yay, it happens to be part of a running joke. That's a very important appearance.</sarcasm> -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because it ties into the running gag means nothing. Whismur was the Pokémon that was the focus of the episode, just like Caterpie was the focus of the third episode of Pokémon.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One might count my opinion as biased, considering I'm mostly here to deal with any issues which involve Bulbapedia on the Wikipedia; however, given that this was brought to my attention, I must note that I fail to see a major, significant difference between Whismur's article, which is being considered for deletion, and Weedle's article, which has good article status - particularly when one notes that Weedle is a first-generation Pokémon and Whismur is a third-generation Pokémon, which inevitably leads to three times the amount of reference material on Weedle as on Whismur. Beyond that, the differences can be whittled down to the In other media section - all Pokémon media, of course - fluff, and polish. --Jaydeis 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't possibly see any good reason in deleting one single Pokemon article out of hundreds. Ignore all rules - if we're going to have 492 of them, we might as well have all 493. --- RockMFR 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - I'm sure we've had dozens, if not hundreds, of similar discussions before. All this seems to be aimed at is changing precedent. I don't quite understand the nominator's motives, but in my opinion nominating individual Pokemon only puts a strain on the deletion system. --- RockMFR 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That assumes that one Pokemon's deletion necessarily means that others should be deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why delete one article out of the 493? That's ridiculous in itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because the one article has a reason I can see to delete. I've not seen any other Pokemon as non-notable as this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What makes it non-notable? It's been featured in an episode of the anime, it's listed among all of the other ones known at both official and fansites, it's probably been published in one of the various handbooks, just like every other one.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, actually, yes, putting Whismur up for deletion does assume exactly that. What you're arguing is whether or not Whismur is notable enough in and of itself to have an article of its own. If there are grounds enough to justify thus far every Pokémon having a separate article, there should be more than enough grounds to justify group articles. So, if Whismur is not notable enough for a single article, then it should be in a group article; but what's the point of a group article if only Whismur and Whismur alone is in it? Why not, in such a case, just have the article for Whismur? Or do you expect everyone to simply pretend Whismur doesn't exist? Or include it as a footnote on the articles for Loudred and Exploud? Deleting one out of 493 serves no purpose except to make an incomplete set. --Jaydeis 02:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I missing something? Why are people assuming that we must write about every Pokemon somewhere in the encyclopedia? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sadly, it's listed in The Official Pokémon Handbook. That means it is notable. It's an officially documented part of the universe. There are cards. It has appeared in the cartoon series. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 02:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC) (signed late)[reply]
• Comment If this one gets deleted based on its AfD nomination criteria, we have grounds for a mass delete of all Pokemon species. Whismur may be obscure to the Pokemon afficiando but then so is Charizard or Bulbasaur to the non-fan; and Pikachu is a complete mystery for most over-60's crowd. if it can fulfill WP:V, it should be a keeper --Eqdoktor 06:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yeah. I wasn't claiming otherwise. It is incredibly rare that something fulfilling WP:V should be deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not knowing much about the subject, the reasons for deletion are a little silly -- where would a Pokemon show up other than in "anime, card game, and video games"? The local Italian restaurant? JPG-GR 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ongep 07:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: while I don't have a strong feeling about this article per se, I feel that the nominator and nomination have been treated unfairly by many !voters. I have recently seen many AfD's where there were complaints because the nominator had created a mass nomination (nominating multiple related articles at the same time). Now, people are complaining because the nominator has not created a mass nomination. This is unfair, and does not reflect the nomination. This nomination is not a call to delete Whismur and keep all other Pokémons, but a call to delete Whismur, full stop. After this AfD, and depending on the comments and the result, every editor can choose to nominate other articles and/or merge them. Another comment is that it is not right to nominate an article for deletion because it only has in-universe references (only references in the show, card game, ...). However, this is a perfect argument for deletion. If no one had ever written anything out-of-universe about Rhett Butler (a terribly unsourced article for the moment) or Tintin and Snowy (a much better example), it would be perfectly allright to delete these articles, since the only sources then would be primary sources, making Wikipedia a secondary source, when it has to be a tertiary source. Every article that fails WP:V, no matter if it is about something obscure of about a detail of a well-known subject, is a fair candidate for deletion. Now, a good argument to keep this article anyway is to point to the available secondary sources (books, articles about Pokémon: not game manuals and so on though, those are still primary sources), of which there are a few listed. Since I am unable to judge if these books fit the WP:V criteria (independent? reliable?), I am in no position to decide if this AfD should get a delete or a weak keep, but I still wanted to comment on the many people unjustly targeting the nomination instead of targeting the subkect and its merits and faults, as an AfD discussion should do. Fram 13:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article itself is not bad. It is sourced just like any other article on a particular Pokémon species. In fact, it even passes a notability requirement for a singular Pokémon that the nominator believes it has failed, which i had also brought up. It's not feasible to merge any of these articles into lists due to their length, nor does it make sense that a single species' article be deleted when it could be improved upon, or other matters be dealt with. This character will probably not be mentioned in the New York Times, or other notable news media like some others have, but Whismur is alongside probably 300 similar cases. The man who knows nothing about Pokémon is only going to know Pikachu, but that does not certainly mean only that one species gets an article, while all of the other ones are relegated to lists. All Pokémon species are only going to be mentioned in
  1. The Video Game series
  2. The Anime series
  3. The Card Game
  4. Official Nintendo publications
  5. Unofficial game guides from third party publishers
  6. and Fansites
  • All of which are listed within each article on each species. There are probably another few sources that I have forgotten to mention, but something like Rotom is not going to be spoken about any time soon.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, but of the six kind of sources you mention, only the fourth and fifth can be considered WP:V sources, with the fourth having the problem that they aren't independent of the subject, and the fifth that they may not be by reliable, fact-checking publishers and authors (but the latter is a possibility I can't judge). So my only question is if the mentions in these sources (especially source number 5) meet WP:V. If not, the articles have to go, no matter how many fans Pokémon has (but then a merge may be a solution, if more can be said about larger groups of Pokémon). If, on the other hand, these books are good WP:V sources and e.g. Whismur is discussed in them in more detail than just a passing mention, then these articles have every right to stay. The other sources are only of supplementary value: 1, 2 and 3 are primary sources, and 6 is of no value for Wikipedia (no matter how good such sites may be). Fram 19:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears in various different media as a character in a massive franchise. WP:PACFAQ. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Like everyone's been saying, If we delete this one, then why not delete other Pokemon articles as well? Joiz ^A. Shmo 20:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wow; Whismur sure is quiet, but this AfD seems to be approaching sound levels like that of Exploud. We still need this (WP:PACFAQ). TTV|talk|contribs|email 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Pokemon aren't non-notable. What about if something links to a Whismur article? As odd as it might sound to some, all pokemon articles are noticable. Yes, even down to Nidoran F. Toastypk 05:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • >__> [1] ^__^ --- RockMFR 21:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't really think that we have completely proven that it is impossible to write an article on Whismur or any other Pokemon like Mitsuhoney. There was a lot of discussion on the WP:PCP talk page about possible mass merging of these near-500 Pokemon creature articles, but that conclusion was never reached, and such an action would create Wikipedia's version of the Los Angeles Riots, I'm sure. Keep in mind that this page never had an editing focus like other articles, but there's certainly room for it. I think Silcoon and Cascoon are even less notable than Whismur, but several months back I had completely rewritten them, and now it's a matter of sourcing those pages to create what I think will be somewhat good articles, at least in comparison to List of ship commissionings in 1964. Whismur hasn't been revamped and rewritten yet, but I may plan to some time in the future. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This is rediculous. It's not non-notable at all. Why not delete all 493 Pokemon articles while you're at it? Spinach Dip 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Has anyone here read this? Wikipedia:Pokémon test. The positive view of the Pokémon argument, which holds that the articles on truly trivial Pokémon turned out to be reasonable articles that fulfill all of Wikipedia's official content policies, and therefore are keepers, like poor Whismur here. Interesting read. --Eqdoktor 08:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaah, keep since Whismur is as notable as any other Pokemon. TZM^{Everything is notable} 17:32, 14 December 2006 (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.