Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perappu

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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perappu

Article consists mainly of original research and guesses. Oarias 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate Tamanta and Buizeru which were created at about the same time. Oarias 17:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - If you haven't figured out my opinion ;-) -- Oarias 18:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as nn -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 18:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and NOR Bucketsofg 19:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete the unverifiable content. Every other Pokemon has an article (at least the few that I remember from playing it in 2nd grade), see Mew (Pokemon), Snorlax, Pikachu, Category:Normal Pokémon, Category:Psychic Pokémon, Category:Legendary Pokémon, etc. Even if it's a stub right now, it'll grow once it's actually released. --Rory0 96 20:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Oh, and List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number has blue wikilinks to every Pokemon in the game. --Rory0 96 20:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - That article should be deleted as well. Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --Oarias 21:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. That's not at all relevant to what I'm saying. That list shows that every single Pokemon has an article. --Rory0 96 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Per your keep comment. -- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Oarias 21:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Which is why I said "delete the unverifiable content." Some things in there are facts, and should be kept. --Rory0 96 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete the unverifiable content. If you delete it now, it will come back once the games are released because those are official new Pokemon, and while there isn't much information about them right now, deletion is simply redundant. There is also a project whose purpose is to make all the Pokemon articles adequate and coherent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.62.222 (talk • contribs)
- Comment-- After carefully re-reading the articles in question it becomes clear that there IS NO verfiable content in these articles whatsoever. Too many "weasly words" (Appears to, is likely that, probably, seems, etc) The only (possibly verifiable) thing these articles contain are descriptions of the pictures contained within the articles themselves. It would appear that all the information in these three articles was obtained from watching some sort of movie trailer, and perhaps speculative discussions on fan sites. Oarias 01:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --Khoikhoi 02:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since some content in all three articles is verified with the official website and by no means defined by the terms "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" or "original research". Remove content that is unverifiable, and Speedily Delete or Merge if there isn't enough information. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 04:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep you idiots Oarias, dear god shut your mouth! These Pokémon were released to the media about a week ago, so of course there won't be much information! Perappu, Tamanta and Buizerru are all new Pokémon and, like the others, will have more information released about them as time goes on. The three also appear in the 9th movie, which is out when, April? Oooh! We must delete the articles until we have.. another screenshot! :O You're just nick-picking foo', leave them be, the new Pokémon games (Diamond & Pearl) will be out shortly and then we will have full, inclusive articles. At the moment, Wikipedia seems to have managed to collect and prose all the available info into one place.

And if you do decide to delete we WILL (I can assure you) re-create them when the movie comes out. Highway 17:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: User warned for personal attack. --Rory0 96 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tetsuya-san. Verifiable and confirmed but if there's no longer enough info left, speedy. --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment(to Highway)-RE: Your comment for me to shut my mouth. In a word -- NO. I'd venture to guess that there are more articles here on some variaton of Pokemon then there are of World War I. Don't you people have your own wiki somewhere else for this fancruft? Why are you so impatient that you have to generate Wikipedia "articles" on speculative characters? To everyone else can you count the number of weasly speculative words in this article: Manaphy ? (Another work of complete speculation). Do we really need articles that consist of nothing more than fan descriptions of movie screenshots and speculation?? At the very least ALL of these articles need to be merged into the main heading of the movie.Oarias 23:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now you're making attacks. Just calm down. --Rory0 96 02:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, verifiable. Snargle 03:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The pokemon were officialy made known only a few weeks ago and little infomation on them is known at this present point of time. --fnfd 04:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just noting that with little information, after a while really small articles should be deleted under the Wikipedia policies if there isn't enough verified information. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 06:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 849 Googles hits for 'Tamanta Pokémon', which is pretty strong, considering it's a future figure. Also, it's too cute to be deleted. Acetic Acid 06:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Too cute" isn't a reason, but the Google hits is a considerable factor. --Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 08:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on Comment: But if it was, it'd be a good one. Highway 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Pokemon confirmed by 9th movie website and Coro Coro. However, remove unverifiable content, such as speculated appearance and characteristics info. Cabby2 22:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all three, plenty of Google hits, verifiable, and no real problems. Trim any content that is speculative. Stifle 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep - It's a real future Pokémon and will just come back again soon enough in accordance with the other Pokémon pages. Now if you'ld kindly back off and go attack things do need deleteing... - Ferret 15:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! - Keep it! It's of future Pokemon. If you delete them, it'll be like they do not exist!

Well they are confirmed pokemon so just keep them and what is the point on deleting them that is like deleting mew or pikachu it is pointless seeing as they are on games already and also in a few months they are going to have to be put back on there seeing how pokemon diamond and pearl are coming out. and Oarias if you dont like the new pokemon just dont buy the game and stop complaining about them on wikipedia for christs sake

Asking Is it all right to mention that they are stubs while (still) up for deletion? I'm only asking as I added the Video Games and Anime sections, but added nothing to them(not enough time at the current moment). Cabby2 19:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. I added to it a little while ago. Cabby2 00:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete unverifiable content.--Zxcvbnm 01:32, 15 March 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.