Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 4

From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change

[change] April 2007

[change] Christian cults

Not NPOV, and I don't see how it can be. No religion considers itself a "Christian cult." TK421 05:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep / Cleanup again. NPOV is not a valid reason to delete something. This same article was nominated by the same editor several months ago for the same reason. The result of the first RfD was to keep the article. Editor appears to be trying again in hopes of getting a better response this time. The argument that no religion considers itself a "Christian cult" is inane as no group of people would consider themselves a cult of any type (except in jest). It would be like saying a murderer doesnt consider himself a criminal so we should not call him one either. -- Creol(talk) 06:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article serves two purposes (1) Define what a Christian cult is, preferrably using sources. This should be possible. (2) Give examples of Christian groups that have been called a cult by one of the definitions given in (1). The article should obviously not say "Pastafarianism is a Christian cult", but it can say: a cult is a totalitarion mind-controlling organization by [1] and [2] ... Pastafarianism has been accused of mind control by [3] and [4]. --rimshot^talk 08:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note that cult does not seem to be defined completely the same in American and British English. The mind control part is more pronounced in British English. --rimshot^talk 08:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, rewrite and extend; by the way the original request is here. The article has been marked as needing cleanup since january, yet little has been done. When extending, care should be taken to clearly make a difference between a cult and a sect; It would also be wise to only list movements that either see themselves as a Christian Cult, or where most authorities agree that they should be seen as such. It is of no use to list the 3 main Christian denominations here, ie. Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant.--Eptalon 08:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with cult. A cult can be based on the beliefs of any religion. I don't see why 'Christian cult' needs its own page. It certainly doesn't have enough info in its current state. 'Cult' is short enough that merging will not clutter the page. Also, consider that every other encyclopedia I've looked at (except en:wiki) doesn't have a separate article for cults based on the Christian faith. Frankly, I've never even heard of the phrase "Christian cult" before. I think merging the two articles, perhaps redirecting 'Christian cult'-->'cult', is the best solution in this case. · Tygartl1^·talk· 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Eptalon. It needs work, but no need to delete it. Majorly (hot!) 21:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The original version of this article on en[1] might be relevant to this talk. It also lists 7 sources. -Haikon 04:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with cult. Are Christian cults so unique they can't be discussed with other cults? - -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  03:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Gary Graham

Looks like some sort of propaganda, and possibly non notable person Majorly (hot!) 21:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as a copyright violation. Majorly (hot!) 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Once copyright information was removed, the article consisted of the word "SOLELY" and a link. Quick deleted the article as the word solely was judge to not be useful information, was nonsense and this is not a link farm. (QD-A1, A2, G1, and it was G12 which caused the removal of information in the first place. ) -- Creol(talk) 13:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was delete.-- Tdxiang 08:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Hard

WP is not a dictionary, and this article is basically a dictionary definition. Dreyderswinson 16:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Wiktionary - I have added a {{dicdef}} tag, which nominates the page for moval to the wiktionary. --rimshot^talk 16:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Lawo

No assertion of notability as far as I can tell, and not really suited to this project at the moment. J Di 14:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under quick deletion criteria A4. PTO 16:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Order of the Garter, Franks, ist of Byzantine Emperors, Privy Council of the United Kingdom

These four articles are direct copy-pastes of en:wiki articles. The user who created them was warned on March 29th that if s/he did not make an effort to simplify the articles, I would put them up for deletion. The editor has made no effort to simplify in the last week. In their current state, the articles serve no purpose. · Tygartl1^·talk· 16:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have gone through the List of Byzantine Emperors article and simplified/trimmed it down so it is a lot easier to read and just has the more basic information needed for the article (did not need causes off leaving office or greek names, could also remove son/husband/wife of info but that seems minor and yet provides a little bit of a trail through the history) -- Creol(talk) 08:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and re-create in a form better suited to SimpleWP. --Eptalon 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Simplification might also be an option; if anyone feels like it. --Eptalon 08:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per request. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There are GFDL copyright issues with copy-pasting, too. PTO 19:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all but the list of Byzantine Emperors. As a list, that one just needs a light simplify. -- Creol(talk) 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Simplify - then we won't have to delete. These are all good encyclopedic topics with many inbound links (they came off the top of the redlink list). There is definitely no copyright illegality with pasting an En: wikipedia article here though, and many people have always done so on the understanding that the articles were to be simplified within a short time. Blockinblox - talk 12:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done, deleted.-- Tdxiang 09:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • List of Byzantine Emperors was 2 1/2 delete, 2 1/2 simplify (and it was simplified). The others were 3 1/2 delete, 1 1/2 simplify. The list did not reach a majority so I restored it. (Also, it's deletes were before it was cleaned up so those could have been a change of position after the simplify) -- Creol(talk) 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Yochanan Vollach

The article is a direct copy-paste of the English article. It was done by an IP address 2 days ago so I can't really give the user a chance to simplify it. I would suggest giving people a few days to simplify and then delete it if no one wants to. · Tygartl1^·talk· 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think it is too early to judge. Also the English reads quite simple already. I would propose to take up the discussion in about a week, if no attempts at simplification have been made (by the original author). Given the article is rather short, I would also opt for the community to help simplify. --Eptalon 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I did some simplification (rewrite would probably better fit it, the English used in the article was terrible). At least sentences are shorter now. I have not checked the facts though. --Eptalon 09:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a personal opinion of mine, obviously, but I am not a fan of copying over from English. I think that if editors want to copy and paste and then simplify, that is fine; however, I feel that they should do the simplification in a very timely manner, preferably immediately after doing the copying and pasting. In my opinion, two days is more than enough time for deletion. Browne34 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (unless someone steps up and simplifies it). We have enough articles already in need of simplification to keep our limited group of editors busy for quite some time with all the other things on our plates. The person who copy/pasted it made it clear they have no intention of simplifying the article (check the talk page - they went so far as to inform us that we need to simplify it for them... ). En:WP copy/pastes have been brought up at least twice on simple talk with the same result basically - case by case basis, leaning to delete/quick delete on articles where simplification is definitely needed and there is no attempt from the creator to even try to do the job. Our editors can not be expected to pick up all the slack from people who just want to copy/paste their favorite topic over here from en:WP and leave the work to us. Copy/pasting is a valid tool for creating strong articles, but only if the person doing it follows up with the needed steps to turn it into an article that meets the guidelines for Simple English. -- Creol(talk) 05:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unless the original author or the person that left the comment on my user page and the talk page of Yochanan Vollach (or anyone else) at least show an attempt to simplify it further; deadline is April 16. --Eptalon 07:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Done, deleted.-- Tdxiang 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Mexico (state)

Mexico (state) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Delete: This is supposed to be about the state not about the country Mexico. As it stands now (and has since the beginning), it is about the country. Also, it does not have any information not in the article on Mexico. Deleting it now may give someone the incentive to create an article about the state later. rimshot^talk 09:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost every wikipedia has a proper article about the state, and so should we. Ideally someone might correct the article now without having to delete it. Blockinblox - talk 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Keeping or deleting the article does not really change the effort needed to do that, however. --rimshot^talk 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the info to be a valid stub for the State of Mexico (within Mexico). Therefore, I do not see any reason for deletion any longer. --Eptalon 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• closing as kept since the original criterion for deletion no longer applies. Blockinblox - talk 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Result:Kept --Eptalon 08:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Magic christian

Probably non-notable. Vote to delete it. --Eptalon 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Update:en has a short article about him, which is pretty similar to what is in simple; in addition, there seems to be a book and a film. --Eptalon 16:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, on grounds of notability? --Eptalon 15:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but perhaps merge into article Magic, on a section about magicians?-- Tdxiang 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Result:Deleted --Eptalon 09:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Category:Glamorgan

(edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Listed as up for deletion, comment of Author was not needed; two articles in cat, Glamorgan and Cardiff. Propose to delete it. --Eptalon 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Rimshot put up the RFD; all I did was take that and put it here. --Eptalon 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per above --Eptalon 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, provided it can be filled with at least two more articles (as proposed), within reasonable time.

--Eptalon 21:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The category was not nominated by the author; it was nominated over a year and a half after creation by another user. Glamorgan is the 2nd largest county in Wales and home to the capital city, Cardiff. While we currently only have 2 entries in the category, there is certainly potential for expansion of the category. The en.wiki category has 62 pages and 12 subcats for the county so expansion is there, and we could add 2 more pages to the category or a sub category with little effort (Martin Amis is a native of Cardiff, Torchwood is set in Cardiff and takes place all over Glamorgan). It is one thing to not create categories for just one or two pages, but if the category already exists, and has potential for expansion, I do not think it should be deleted. -- Creol(talk) 16:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Creol's reasons Blockinblox - talk 17:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry for not putting it here. I really don't know why I forgot that. The reason I added the rfd tag was that the category at the time contained only one article: Glamorgan itself. The point of this discussion is (also) to find out whether there is potential for growth. It now looks as if there might be some. Therefore I am now neutral on the topic. Again, sorry for the confusion. --rimshot^talk 09:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Result:Kept --Eptalon 09:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] March 2007

[change] Serkan sarioglan

Serkan sarioglan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Many of the contributor's articles on villages can be fixed for the gazetteer, but I would draw the line at local football stars! Blockinblox - talk 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough. Ksbrown^talk 21:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah, I have to agree. He really is not notable enough for wikipedia simple english. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 02:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. · Tygartl1^·talk· 14:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I think besides not being notable; it's also NPOV. --Eptalon 15:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] March 2004

March 2004 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Page is not needed. This is the only Month, Year page remaining after all others from the time period were merged into the year page. 2004 already has 18 entries for the month of March. Such detailed daily news updates for the month are not needed-- Creol(talk) 16:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as long as the information is fairly covered on the 2004 page. Tygartl1 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per above. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• I will delete it as soon as someone lets me know it's been merged. Blockinblox - talk 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged--Werdan7^{T @} 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] Kanbearer

Kanbearer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

It may be a hoax. There are no hits on Google, Yahoo, or en.wikipedia. Wodup 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete either a hoax or badly misspelt. --rimshot^talk 09:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete This article is clearly a hoax. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 18:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely seems like nonsense. By looking at the contributor's other edits, it seems they are not a serious editor. Tygartl1 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] Lang-a-bang

Lang-a-bang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

It may be a hoax. There are no hits on Google, Yahoo, or en.wikipedia. Wodup 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete either a hoax or badly misspelt. --rimshot^talk 09:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Again, this is clearly a hoax. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely seems like nonsense. By looking at the contributor's other edits, it seems they are not a serious editor. Tygartl1 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] Template:Prettytable

Template:Prettytable (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

As far as I know, {{prettytable}} was used on English Wikipedia before the wikitable table class was created. I'm guessing this template on this wiki did the same thing. It's not used in any pages at the moment, and we don't need it because we have the table class, so there's no reason for keeping it. J Di 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Result was delete. J Di 09:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Ksbrown^talk 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as stated above --rimshot^talk 21:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --Werdan7^{T @} 23:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as template is not in use anymore. :)-- Tdxiang 04:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] Template:DuckTales, Template:Disney direct-to-video animated features, Template:Darkwing Duck

Template:DuckTales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The 'DuckTales' template is pretty much useless. It is not being used on any page. There is not even a page for DuckTales, and the only character whose page is created (Donald Duck) doesn't really have a large enough role on the show to use the template.

The 'Disney direct-to-video animated features' template is also useless. Not a single movie listed has a page. They're just taking up space.

Sidenote: some of you may remember the user a while back who was creating all sorts of Disney movies simply by copying and pasting from en:wiki. This same user created both templates. They may have linked to pages that have been deleted, and as such no longer serve a purpose.

Regarding Template:Darkwing Duck, it's made by a different user but is equally pointless. It appears to also have been made by a user who liked to copy and paste from en:wiki. Tygartl1 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Donald may get lonely without a template (that he isnt even using), but looking at the template, he has no friends anyway so this is nothing new to him. Neither template is needed at this time, and should they ever become needed, they are direct copies of en:WP templates that could just be copied over (again) when the time comes. -- Creol(talk) 15:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete these remains of a page-creation spree that was bordering on vandalism anyway. --rimshot^talk 16:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC) - Delete the Darkwing Duck template as well (as per nom.) --rimshot^talk 08:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry Donald. Ksbrown^talk 14:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Result: Deleted. PTO 01:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] Wikipedia:WikiProject

Wikipedia:WikiProject (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This project doesn't need this page, it has been decided at least once that we don't need WikiProjects yet, and this page has said that it would be updated for the last 14 months (I know neglect is not a valid reason for deletion). J Di 23:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Result was no consensus. J Di 12:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - We don't have enough people to merit a Wikiproject. PTO 00:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't Wikipedia:Esperanza a Wikiproject? --rimshot^talk 13:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is according to en:Wikipedia:Esperanza but, if I'm right, it's also the only WikiProject. J Di 13:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, change will be updated to currently the only wikiproject on simpleWP is Esperanza. I think even if there is only one such project, it makes sense to explain what a wikiproject is. --rimshot^talk 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The reason why I am voting weak keep is per Rimshot. Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not of requirement. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Esperanza until there are more wikiprojects.--Werdan7^{T @} 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is only Esperanza. Ksbrown^talk 14:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep' There will be more wikiprojects in the future, so just add a link to Esperanza onto the page... Nancysing 04:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] List of municipalities of Switzerland

I propose to delete this list. Yes I know, enWP has it too. The problem I see is however a different one:

• It is 88k in size, and of doubtful value
• Some info on it is clearly wrong. (Abtwil is in the catnon of St.Gallen, right next to St.Gallen; not in Aargau).
• Some town names are more popular than others. There are 2 Affoltern in the canton of Zürich; there are a few Altstätten (SG), Altstetten (ZH), for example.

I do not think that we currently have the knowledge or time to proofread this (given our limited resources. For Switzerland, it would be a start if all 23 (26) cantons were there, and all their capitals). --Eptalon 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Result was delete. J Di 14:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - for the reasons given --Eptalon 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I concur. Browne34 02:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Reason: doubtful value: (1) It has hardly any value as navigation aid, as most municipality articles aren't there anyway. (2) Its value as reference is diminished by it being available in enWP and not very precise. --Rimshot 10:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no value to this article. --Sir James Paul ,La gloria è a dio 15:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see that it's harming anything, even if it isn't all that useful. However, if the content is incorrect as you say it is, it should probably be removed. Cantons of Switzerland already exists, although in the form of Canton, which is incorrectly defined as a state in Switzerland (the term "canton" can also refer to a state in a few other countries). I am going to make 'Canton' a disambig page and move the info that's currently there to 'Cantons of Switzerland'. I think at this stage in Simple's development that this is a good level of detail on the divisions in Switzerland. We just are not ready for the detail that the 'Municipality' page calls for. Tygartl1 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have created Cantons of Switzerland and made canton a disambig page. Tygartl1 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated above, it would be a good start to have one page for each of the 23 (actually 26) cantons, and one page for the capital of each. This already makes 52 articles (most of which are not there). If then we get 2-3 other cities per canton that leaves enough playground for people to play with, and is most probably faster to do than to correct the list above. --Eptalon 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] Template:Blocked

Template:Blocked (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template that I don't think has any practical use. The user pages of temporarily blocked users aren't blanked and replaced with any templates, and {{block}} is more suited to informing users of blocks because it tells them how they might get unblocked. J Di 11:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Result was changed. J Di 13:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot say whether this template should be deleted, but I do think that {{blocked}} is more visually appealing than {{block}}. --Rimshot 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Change from temporary block to indefinite (simplified to permanent or forever) block and use like w:Template:Indefblockeduser. Wodup 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Change - agree with Wodup. Assuming this RfD is still open, sorry if not. FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 19:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] Christopher Gribbenov

Christopher Gribbenov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

I cannot find anything about this supposedly important person. I have also looked for Gribenov, Griebenov, Griebenow, Gribbenow. Looks completely invented to me. Rimshot 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is a references to this very person in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which was added by the same IP address. This should probably deleted as well if the RfD goes through. --Rimshot 18:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, a Google search for the name returns no hits outside of Wikimedia projects. J Di 18:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No source, no hit in google... FrancoGG ^{( talk )} 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Gribanov seems to be a common spelling, but no evidence for this man, so looks like hoax information. Note there is one more hit for both names, for a teenager named Chris Gribben sometimes referred to by nickname Gribbenov, may be some sense of humor involved. Blockinblox - talk 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And looking on the talk page reveals it was created by an IP who is normally much more blatant in their vandalism. I can't believe I actually cleaned it up according to the history when I was going through uncategorized articles! Blockinblox - talk 19:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, look at the history for Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. User:Keitei seems to have something to do with this. Never mind, he just rephrased the sentence in good faith by replacing a pronoun. But the very first incarnation also connects to Chris Gribben, and is pure pseudohistory, so our leg has clearly been pulled. Blockinblox - talk 19:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[change] Zigzagoon

In my opinion, simple.wikipedia isn't at the level of detail that is required for articles on individual species of Pokemon. Comments? PTO 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. 493 species of Pokemon, gotta catch them all, but certainly do not have to make an article on each one. That being the case though, I don't believe it to be a point of Simple not being at the level of detail for this to be the case. Simple's pokemon section not being of level? certainly. But not simple as a whole. IF someone were to be motivated in that area and create a 10-15K pokemon article, then went on with a full creature list article and finally moved on to various individual creature articles, I would not see it as an issue as long as the articles done at least had enough info for say 500 byte each. If that is the area they want to edit, so be it as long as the quality and quantity is there. But a 1 line statement about an obscure species? certainly not notable enough at this point. Much of the rest of the pokemon species in their category are over the 500byte limit and actually have some semblance of information in them that could be the foundation for a pokemon walled garden, but this article is just not up there. -- Creol(talk) 06:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete cos only core articles are allowd. Previous unsigned comment was added by 166.121.37.10 01:11, February 15, 2007

• Delete, per core article guideline.-- Tdxiang 09:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pokémon.--TBCΦtalk? 22:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, by the way, should other pages in Category:Pokémon be nominated for deletion as well?--TBCΦtalk? 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment If there is something resembling an article, like Bulbasaur, there is no reason to delete it. Brock and Aerodactyl might be candidates for a merge, but even there I don't think it is necessary to delete the content, just to move it. See my vote below. --Rimshot 12:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the non-articles into a characters section of Pokémon. Keep articles that are long enough, put links to them on the Pokémon page. At some point there might come someone who wants to make a complete list of Pokémon characters. Until that day, I don't think there is a need for a separate article for the character listing. --Rimshot 12:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Pokémon. poké-cruft.--Werdan7^{T @} 23:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. When this wikipedia grows, then we can consider articles on pokemon. Not yet though. I would say that the only individual pokemon needed is Pikachu. Bulbasaur is alright though, and it's fine to keep that. Zigzagoon is an obscure pokemon, and should be created when simple english wikipedia seriously grows. Cream147 10:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted -- Creol(talk) 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)