Wikipedia:Pokémon test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
The Pokémon test is a device sometimes used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in defense of a keep vote. In particular, it asserts that the subject of that article is "more notable than the average Pokémon". In that, it is 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.
Each of the 493 Pokémon has its own page, all of which are bigger than stubs. While it would be expected that Pikachu would have its own page, some might be surprised to find out that Bellsprout has its own page, as well. Some people perceive Pokémon as something "for little kids" and argue that if that gets an article, so should their favorite hobby/band/made-up word/whatever.
This defense is often challenged because it implies a defeatist attitude toward maintaining standards for encyclopedic content (See Wikipedia:Notability). There is also a 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 so might the subject being challenged on AfD.
Contents |
[edit] Examples of typical use
- More keep-worthy than any individual Pokemon. Zoe 07:42, September 4, 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Nipp
- 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)
- ...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
- 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
[edit] History
It is believed to stem 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 the Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project and the pledge that all stubs were to be expanded saw the issue die down somewhat.
[edit] Criticism of the Pokémon test
There are three main criticisms of the Pokémon test that often arise in response to its use:
- The first and most common is that the inclusion of so many Pokémon articles is a mistake, and two wrongs don't make a right (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.
