Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnaca
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete. BLACKKITE 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arnaca
A "new pokemon" that was "found" with Gameshark. Original research; Also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE TheBilly (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep Mergebut rewrite. We have articles for the other 493 Pokémon, why not this one? It appears to be an official part of the game and is verifiable through various game web sites. I also remind you that Mew was originally a Game Shark only Pokémon. Redfarmer (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
After taking another look at the way Pokémon structures its articles on individual Pokémon, I think it would be better to merge this article into List of Pokémon (481-493) and rename the article to include a 494th Pokémon. Redfarmer (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment Explain "Verifiable through game websites". Where'd you get this idea? "Arnaca Pokemon" returns 8 google hits and those are incidental (i.e. the words simply appear together by coincidence, like in a WoW post with a list of WoW character names including "Arnaca") TheBilly (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my vote for now. I swear a minute ago I thought I'd found some verification through game sites but I can't find it now. If I find it again I'll post it. Redfarmer (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hm, you might be thinking Arceus? I'm not disputing any of the ones that are only available via gameshark/hacking in America (or at least used to be, don't know if that's changed). This is a new, made up one: Some gibberish about a glitch and gameshark code that gives you a differently colored version of an existing pokemon TheBilly (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I withdraw my vote for now. I swear a minute ago I thought I'd found some verification through game sites but I can't find it now. If I find it again I'll post it. Redfarmer (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Explain "Verifiable through game websites". Where'd you get this idea? "Arnaca Pokemon" returns 8 google hits and those are incidental (i.e. the words simply appear together by coincidence, like in a WoW post with a list of WoW character names including "Arnaca") TheBilly (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Most definitely not notable. Some bug in a game. Come on people...Malinaccier (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. If consensus is that individual Pokemon are not notable and have been merged to lists, then a glitch (like Missingno.) is definitely not notable. Google search makes it also fail WP:V.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Snow close, anyone? the only objections were retracted (right?). This is looking non-controversial - TheBillyTalk 15:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
