Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulbasaur (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. This is Articles for deletion. No-one wants an administrator to press a delete button here. This is an ordinary editing dispute that is addressible with ordinary editing tools. It was pointed out a Deletion Review that that was the improper venue for discussing this, and that the proper venue was the article's talk page. AFD, too, is not the proper venue for discussing this. What 81.104.39.63 (talk · contribs) wrote at Deletion review is quite correct. Articles for deletion is for discussing deletion, the pressing of a delete button by an administrator. Do not bring articles here if an administrator pressing that button is not what you want. The correct venues for discussing redirects, mergers, and other ordinary editing matters (which do not involve deletion in any way) are, as 81.104.39.63 pointed out, the articles' talk pages, employing Wikipedia:Requests for comment if necessary. There is enough traffic at AFD discussing articles where deletion is genuinely involved. AFD is not a way of gaining a wider audience to a talk-page discussion. That is Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Other venues for raising matters for general discussion are the Wikipedia:Village pump, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussions. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid closing statement stricken. This was a procedural nomination per WP:DRV so reasoning addressing editorial nominations does not apply. In any case, this is a snowball keep. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur

Listed at deletion review because a long history of edit warring led to a protected redirect to List of Pokémon (1-20). Since "delete and redirect", "redirect without deletion", "merge" and "keep" are all possibilities, a community discussion on content is needed. Procedural nomination, I have no editorial opinion on the topic. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Former featured article on the Main Page, no clear reason for deletion/redirection was given.- PeaceNT (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By virtue of the fact that this article was promoted to Featured Status, a great deal of verifiable, notable information exists in this topic. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 14:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep due to Featured Article status. Madman (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The article was a featured article, but as time passes, standards change. After being removed from FA status, the article couldn't become a good article. It was decided by the Pokemon project to remove all besides Pikachu because it is the only one with relevant information (feel free to compare and contrast). Also, please do not say that this has enough information to hold an article. Most of the first two hundred could easily get up to this standard. Should be bring those back too? TTN (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked you several times before to give me the links to the relevant discussions that, as you said, had reached consensus, but you refused to do so. Now, I ask you again, please provide the links so the AfD participants can judge the case on its merit. Thanks, - PeaceNT (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep it's a previous TFA, for god's sake Will ^(talk) 16:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major character in the series. The article is sourced and was formerly featured. What is the supposed problem? — brighterorange (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When the article was redirected, several editors attempted to put the information in the List article. It was repeatedly removed, and stated that the list was for summaries only and that was too much information. IF there is too much information for a summary, then it is clear that an article is needed. Redirection has resulted in citied information being removed from wikipedia, an action contrary to the goals of the project. Last, TTN's assertion that "It was decided by the Pokemon project to remove all besides Pikachu" is absurd. A look at the talk page and other conversations will show there was HUGE opposition to this. Just because a few months passed and THEN it was redirected without discussion or consensus does not mean that people's former opinions have gone away. Even the redirect was reverted and only remains because its creator and TTN edit warred over it, against other's opinions so it is pretty clear that there is/was/never was consensus for that action. pschemp | talk 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As several people have pointed out, the article was once a Featured Article. If this article was at one time considered to be one of the absolute best on the entire of Wikipedia, then there is obviously enough relevent information on the topic. Yes, it was delisted, and no, it's not even a Good Article now, but if information was lost or made muddling since it became a Featured Article it can be restored. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have explained why this article should be kept lots of times at at the Pokémon Wikiproject talkpage. I won't repeat myself here, unless I need to; read the archives at WT:POKE. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:49, 25 January 2008 (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.