Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon ability

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon ability

• Wikipedia is not a game guide. Edit: I just want to add right up front for the closing admin to make sure there is no confusion that this article is merely a list of every ability the various pokemon have in the various pokemon games, what these abilities do, and which pokemon have them. Therefore the sole purpose of the article is to be an in-depth guide to a facet of a video game. Here is a quote from WP:NOT: "Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." (Emphasis added) To quote Wikipedia:Deletion Policy: "[I]t's worth noting that (as with all Wikipedia consensus decisions), the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a "sense of the community" and the valid points for or against each view. So deletion is not a strict "count of votes", but rather a judgement based upon experience and taking into account the policy-related points made by those contributing (emphasis added). The policy arguement for deletion is that it is a violation of the WP:NOT point quoted above. The keep votes are based mostly on an desire by pokemon fans to keep an article they have worked on and find useful, but no arguement has been made relating to policy, nor has the proposition that the article violates WP:NOT been refuted. Just some food for thought. Indrian 01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Whoa, hold it! Wouldn't it be more appropriate to discuss this on the article's talk page instead of instantly nominating it for deletion? I'm not for deleting the article, but I also see how it doesn't qualify for the Best Article award. Maybe it could use more expository text and have more of an overview of what a Pokémon ability is instead of being merely a huge list. Several people put a lot of work into this article (there's a lot of Pokémon to list and link); it'd be a shame to lose it so fast. --Brandon Dilbeck 01:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is none of my concern whether a lot of people have worked on this article or not. Please read WP:NOT, paying particular attention to the part about wikipedia not being a game guide. This article violates policy, and I see no way this article could be changed to not violate policy. AfD is the proper venue for this discussion. Indrian 01:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I say Keep because this article is relatively new and could be fixed to have more generic information in it, rather than being a big list of data. With the new Pokémon game coming out soon, there may soon be a plethora of information to add. --Brandon Dilbeck 02:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Though there are other wikis where concerned Pokemaniacs can harvest info, a small article is ok.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, no it is not because it violates policy. I hope that if this keep vote trend continues the admin who closes this AfD will take a close look at the article and a close look at policy and realize that this article is in violation. Indrian 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep TJ Spyke 02:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - we're not a game guide, although there are obviously sites out there which are or don't mind being. BigHaz 02:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, the information on the specific abilities of the creatures either is already or should probably be in the articles on the creatures themselves, rather than here. This makes it look very gameguidey. BigHaz 05:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:OR. Even merging is not an option as nothing here can be saved without looking like a 'how to' or 'guide'. -Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Brian. Leuko 03:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and prosify. Possibly provide longer, more gradual intro to abilities. This is not OR, the game guides for all the G3 games list abilities and descriptions, as well as which Pokemon they are on. I will gradually be rewriting/prosifying/modifying this article. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The work is complete. A lot of it was copied from in-game descriptions. The new listings note similarities to other abilities as well as stat boosts. The game is very vague on the latter and does not cover the former. I also notice WP:V is a non-factor, it's also not OR. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwikify to Wikibooks kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 03:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think this would be good on 'Books. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 03:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's a game guide. Move somewhere else if there's anywhere that wants it, but we shouldn't have it. Opabinia regalis 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: It's not fit to have its own article. Perhaps certain information could be merged into the Ruby and Sapphire article, as long as it doesn't list out the abilities and their effects... That's irrelevant to Wikipedia.--Coltonblue 03:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Although it could do with references moving onto the article itself instead of via wikilinks, it passes WP:V, my most important test. For the WP:NOTABLE crowd, it also clearly passes by virtue of being Pokémon. The information detailed within this article cannot be currently aquired in a concise form within wikipedia, and hence this article serves a purpose. I also see no instructions on the explicit use of these abilities (implict use by their description alone is unavoidable, but hence not an issue), or a guide about them. LinaMishima 06:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I also believe that AfD without prior discussion on a long-standing and well-edited article is very bad practice. Discussion first will result in either a consensus to delete in advance (saving a lot of trouble), or the article being fixed. LinaMishima 06:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Reading this article doesn't help make me a better Pokémon player, hence it's not really game guide-esque. --SaturnYoshi 06:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Hold up! Where does it cite sources? Why should this article be allowed to ignore WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS when all other articles must follow them? While I can respect the feelings that some of the other editors have completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites or suggesting that pokemon isn't important to children or such. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules. Let me help out a bit so the people new to wikipedia understand. The real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be original research, which means there have to be sources to back up the claims of the author(s) and all information provided in the article. It must also have a neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must cite it's information with reliable sources and be must be encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet WP:V, sections of WP:OR (if not all of OR), does not follow the guideline of WP:CITE or WP:RS. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. This article must cite multiple, reliable, secondary, independent of the organization, non-trivial, third-party sources such as books, magazines, and papers that have national and/or international coverage. The articles must be based, or completely focused on just pokemon (and in this case, the powers). Just a mention in passing is not acceptable (as it is concidered a trivial source...even if it is in the New York Times...the source isn't trivial, but the coverage by the source was). So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (as explained above). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. In essence, please explain why this article should be allowed to not follow WP:V when all other articles must. While we know that pokemon is Verifiable, where are the New York Times, Washington Post, or CBS nightly news report on the pokemon abilities? I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 07:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply There are ungoing debates over the use of wikilinks as references. Whilst featuring the references themselves is generally better, if a direct wikilink has the reference this also tends to count. Secondly, Primary sources are valid sources for indisputable facts, such as the engine of a car, or rules within a game. If you read WP:NOR and WP:RS, this use of primary sources is allowed, if not perfect. It should also be noted that the article clearly meets WP:NPOV. LinaMishima 08:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The section where it lists what abilities each Pokémon has should simply be on the individual Pokémon pages, however a general article describing the gameplay mechanics of abilities (i.e., everything above the list) is fine with me as long as it doesn't become a game guide. BryanG^(talk) 07:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I would change to keep ONLY if the lists were removed permanently and sources cited for all the information above the lists (and not links to other wikipedia articles but actual links outside of wikipedia. Or books/magazine/tv references) --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 07:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you cite a video game? I'm just ignorant--I'd do it if I knew how. Regardless, I didn't use any external resources to write the upper paragraphs (above the list), just my own personal knowledge of what Pokémon have which abilities. Besides, the List of Mario series items is also video-game-related and it doesn't seem to cite any resources as well. --Brandon Dilbeck 14:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment So Brandon, by your comment you admit this is original research. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My research wasn't original; this information can be found in many places on the Internet and it's been published in many playing guides and even in the game itself. I was just stating why the upper paragraphs didn't have citations--because I didn't know how. But I think I got them right now. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a central concept of the Pokémon game, but maybe remove the listing of specific abilities. JIP | Talk 09:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm getting the feeling that the insisting of deletion here may be prejudice against Pokemon. Although I'm not a Pokemon fan myself I do agree with those who say the article may merely just need cleaning up rather than a full scale deletion. --204.116.124.117 09:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This whole Pokemon cruft thing has gotten out of hand. They should really start their own wiki along with professional wrestling and the legions of wannabe indie bands. --Xrblsnggt 09:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete void of any encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a publisher of game guides. --Mecanismo | Talk 10:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — article needs to be cleanup. Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As one of the main contributors to this page(fixing links, adding secondary effects), I believe this article should stay. As mentioned before it is a central concept of the games, and as a central concept I believe there should be a page describing and listing all of the abilities. The article does need a bit cleaning up, but other than that there is no reason for deletion. 0-172 16:39, 24 August (UTC)
  • A page listing and describing all the abilities is a game guide in violation of policy. Cleaning it up will not save it. Indrian 17:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm all for having an article that explains what Pokémon abilities are, which assumes no prior experience of Pokémon, and generally describes some of the various types of abilities. But a listing of each specific ability and which Pokémon creatures have that is utter gamecruft, and should be removed. JIP | Talk 18:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • However surely the article you propose, stripped of descriptions of all but a handful of abilities and without additional information is of less intrinsic value than the current article? It would, however, be more immediately accessable - but this is easily fixable in the current article. LinaMishima 19:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The question is not one of value but of being encyclopedic. If one wants a description of Pokemon abilities, one should go to GameFAQs. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the internet. Indrian 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't see why not--isn't it Wikipedia's goal to absorb as much knowledge as possible? I don't see why this list should be less important than a list of Gargoyles episodes--are we implying that television is more important than video games? Never mind, this isn't the place to discuss this. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
            • If Wikipedia's goal was to "absorb as much knowledge as possible", then every single non-notable vanity article would have been kept. I've written articles about my former company, a fan club I'm part of, and myself. All got deleted for non-notability, and I agree with the result. If you really want "as much knowledge as possible", I can document every single old newspaper, empty beer can, and ball of dust I have lying around. JIP | Talk 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup — Based on the desriptions of the abilities, which delve into things like HP's &c., most of the content is pretty clearly game guide. It needs a significant re-write to bring it in line with wikipedias consensus policies. I suppose the creature combos could be moved to the individual creature pages, in the manner of "other creatures with this ability". — RJH (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 21:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. TJ Spyke 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC) TJ Spyke 22:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Selmo 00:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure the full list of abilities is necessary, but I don't see anything wrong with having the article. Ace of Sevens 00:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Edgecution 00:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Brandon Dilbeck - Sonic3KMaster(鉄也)^(talk) 01:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Pokemon = cool. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Delete WP is not a game guide. --- Hong Qi Gong 03:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, explaining important aspects of games is part of providing an encyclopedic treatment. Not a "how-to" so the prohibition on game guides is obviously being misapplied. Kappa 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & cleanup Havok (T/C/c) 12:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep One day, we will have accumulated enough pokemoncruft to create an entirely separate pokemonwiki and we can all celebrate by transwikying this ballast! Eusebeus 20:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That exists, right here. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wp is not a game guide--Peephole 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Dare I cite WP:PKMN? TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 00:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You certainly can if you want. But what an essay which amounts to a personal opinion of the author(s) proves about whether or not this article violates a policy is beyond me. Indrian 00:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• comment. I don't understand the jump between an article being about a game and being a game guide. To my mind, a game guide gives you hints and suggestions about strategies, etc. Documenting facts about a game need not constitute a guide. Also, for articles about fictional works, the work itself often serves as a perfectly good primary source. — brighterorange (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that this can be a difficult area to define. To me, it usually comes down to focus. Obviously, an article must give a general overview of how a game works in order to convey the subject properly. However, when an article begins to go into every facet of a game, or a part of a game, then it is starting to cross the line. By analogy, a plot summary is necessary to explaining a novel, but a chapter by chapter summary goes beyond explaining what the book is about and becomes a substitute for the novel itself. As for pokemon, describing the role abilities play in the game and giving one or two examples helps inform on the game. Something this comprehensive can only be useful to one attempting to formulate game strategy even if the article does not give specific strategies itself. In other words, only one playing the game requires this level of deatil. That, to me, is what makes it a game guide. Indrian 04:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• I have added a proposal to the article's talk page. This would remove all the Pokemon names from the list and would certainly make the article seem less Pokecrufty. Please provide feedback on this proposal. --Brandon Dilbeck 05:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree and would put the Catagories into a Deletion review, personally. There is no reason for catagories on 'growth' or 'lightning' just to catagorize the characters. The articles on the characters are enough. There is no need to catagorize them or even have a 'list' like this. Remove the list, leave the top paragraph but reference the hell out of it. Why do we need a list when it is easy enough for people to look directly at each characters' page and/or get a free game guide/FAQ online? The only people who would be interested in knowing this information are the people who play the games...hence it is a game guide. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see my reply to that in the article's talk page. I don't want to cause the same discussion to happen in two different places. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete didn't we delete this a while ago? On their own, abilities lack any distinct encylopedic value. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 23:01, 27 August 2006 (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.