Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happiness Pokémon

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Article is pending deletion with a block compress error. Joyous 00:18, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Happiness Pokémon

This stub reads as follows: "Happiness Pokémon include the following: Togepi Togetic Blissey" and promises organic expansion. Is google a fair barometer for determining notability of the Happiness Pokémon? If so, it receives 25 unique google hits [1] , is this enough for inclusion into the sum of all human knowledge? Please discuss. GRider\^talk 20:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Does this article cause you happiness? No? Well, I guess we can safely delete it then. There is a group of people dedicated to creating qualified Pokemon articles, rather than incomprehensible stubs like these. So I'm sure they'll categorize Togepi Togetic Blissey somewhere useful. Radiant! 21:01, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this unhappy article. Article says: 'This list will be expanded as more Pokémon entries are added to Wikipedia'. I say: 'Do we need more of those articles?'. --Neigel von Teighen 21:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, helpful for organizing pokemon, even after they are all merged together. Kappa 22:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. More Pokecruft. It doesn't even say what a "happiness pokemon" is, or what make sthem happy. I'm sick of this sort of thing. -R. fiend 01:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. ✏ OvenFresh ² 01:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 02:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Pokémon types or List of Pokémon by species. Deleting this as cruft would set a precedent that would legitimately allow the entire Pokémon types article to be VfD'ed. I hope those voting delete acknowledge this and will vote delete for Pokémon types in case it is ever submitted. Phils 10:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I believe most people voting "delete" want everything deleted except pokemon itself and pikachu. Kappa 12:17, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - I would disagree. There are some other notable Pokémon characters than Pikachu, but that doesn't automatically make every Pokémon character, classification and term notable. I vote Delete on this article. — JIP | Talk 10:26, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. So-called "species" of Pokemon are already handled by List of Pokemon by species, which already includes the "Happiness" species. That article handles each species through a separate sub-section, which makes more sense to me than a separate article for each of the dozen or more different species. As for List of Pokemon by species article, and all the rest of the Pokemon stuff: it makes sense to have these articles in the Wikipedia only if we want it to be the online Encyclopedia of Pokemon, and Kappa is correct that there is strong objection to that, including from me. But it is a debate for another day. --BM 15:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obscure fancruft. Martg76 17:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the consensus, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex members, is to phase out species pages (eg. "Mouse Pokémon", not "Sandshrew") both as separate articles and in the Pokémon infobox. kelvSYC 18:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Not needed for good reasons given by others. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm certainly a fan of Pokémon, but I don't think this is neccessary. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Apparently, the relevant WikiProject is trying to phase out articles like this. — Gwalla | Talk 04:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.