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 no consensus -- sorry to say, but unfortunately, large "group" AfDs like this tend to turn into a mess. It looks like there are strong camps in all areas -- merge, keep, and delete. If I happen to have missed a particularly strong consensus to delete any two or three of these pages, I'd recommend starting a second nomination for just those, linking to this one. Other than that, I'd recommend giving the mergists some time to do their work, and then starting smaller group (or even individual) AfD proceedings. The other trick is to put one through as a "tester" to establish a general consensus, before putting in the group. So again, rather than objecting to this close on my talk page, please feel free to head to deletion review or start second noms for particularly problematic or other individual pages. Best of luck and happy editing to all. Luna Santin 09:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here Comes the Squirtle Squad[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

There's a number of pokemon articles that say nothing except a plot summary (something just a one sentence long summary, as in the case of this squitle episode), an info box, and sometimes a cast list (=indiscriminate collection of information, what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. We don't need 500+ pokemon episode articles (only a matter of time before someone makes an article similar to this one for each pokemon episode, not hard to do either) if all they're going to contain only plot summaries and an indiscriminate dump of cast information.

This isn't a nomination for deletion for all pokemon articles (just the ones listed here). Some, like Electric_Soldier_Porygon, are significant for good reason. And has an article that does have commentary and real life context. With information which can be verified and sourced (although it currently is not). However, there is no evidence that the 500 other pokemon articles will ever reach this stage.

Actually, it seems like there just isn't anything to say about them - For example, even the very first pokemon episode Pokémon, I Choose You!, which is probably the most famous episode (being the very first) is just a plot summary. Although a far longer plot summary (which isn't a good thing. A scene-by-scene synopsis is something to be avoided as per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes

There's nothing wrong with episode articles if they're good and well developed, but that isn't the case here. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes says:

"Once there's enough independently verifiable information to do so, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show."

"Once there's enough independently verifiable information included about individual episodes, spin the information from episodes out into their own articles."

There's no indication of there even being enough "independently verifiable information" to write articles on each season, let along articles for each episode. If people really have so much to write about, they should start with good season articles, (or articles for part of the season, so like episodes 1-20, season 1. since pokemon seasons are LONG), and then expand into episode articles only when there is more to say about an individual episode.

These are the articles i'm nominating:

note - the Ice Cave and Holidy Jynx articles do contain a "contraversy" section. However, the contraversy sections are just a copy (or shortened copy) of what's already been said at the Banned episodes of Pokémon article. So really, there's nothing new on them except the very short episode summaries.

And just for clarification, these articles are NOT being included in this AfD

• Electric Soldier Porygon (article is a mess, but not suitable to be bundled in here)
• Pokémon: Mewtwo Returns
• The Mastermind of Mirage Pokémon
• all the articles for pokemon movies

`/aksha 02:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent point. There's an ongoing effort to merge these episodes (save for possibly Electric Soldier Porygon into lists, such as List of Pokémon: Battle Frontier episodes. This was a recent consensus reached at the Pokémon Wikiproject, so the merges aren't quite done yet. Unless someone has some great desire to overturn the consensus formed there, I suggest withdrawing this and helping with the merges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • damn...looks like wikiproject beat me to the punch =). The inconsistent tagging of "this article may need cleanup" made me think people had just forgotten about the whole lot. Oh right, I'll rest my case. --`/aksha 03:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's an episode article, there's other episode articles †he Bread 03:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but not every other episode article consists of just a plot summary and an infobox. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep They need to be kept. (14:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)) — Possible single purpose account: Pikchu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
  • User:Pikchu's fourth edit. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Storng Keep - Needs alot of work, needs more information rather than just a short summary. (User_talk:Fabu-Vinny 16:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)) — Possible single purpose account: Fabu-Vinny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. (and has been blocked indefintely for being a sock)[reply]
  • For the record, I'm the Fabu-Vinny of Bulbapedia and BMG and that wasn't me. --Sonic Mew 12:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All Do you plan on doing this for every TV show? Many shows have articles for every episode, even Star Trek with it's 700+ episodes among the 5 series. TJ Spyke 03:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only for the TV shows where the episode articles contain only summaries. And when they can obviously be merged into season (or other logical divisions) of episode articles. Defintely not planning to nominate everything. For example, i'm certianly not planning to nominate Buffy episodes. Since the articles defintely have more than just a summary (See Welcome to the Hellmouth (Buffy episode), especially note the section on "Writing"). It's obvious someone's made an effort to actually write an encyclopedic article, rather than just an episode summary. They're all well organized, and the summaries themselves are actually good - as in they're detailed but not a dry scene-by-scene recall. With like...these pokemon episodes. I don't think people can even squeeze enough out of them to make decent encyclopedic season articles, let along encyclopedic epidosde articles. As for Star Trek, i'm not sure. I'm defintely planning to go in there and clean out the mass of trivia when i find spare time. As for actually nominating the articles for deletion, i am tempted to do so. They are also just a mass of summaries, although they are quite obviously a step up from the kind of articles in this nomination and in the 4400 episodes nomination. Using season articles for summaries of that size will cause article length problems. Don't suppose you could point me to something that explains where wikipedia stands with huge long detailed summaries that provide no commetary and otherwise encyclopedic information? --`/aksha 04:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All TV episode articles are acceptable for most series, and Pokemon is more notable than most. At least one of these has been up for deletion before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Catches a Pokémon) and the result was a near-unanimous consensus to keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedent and previous AfDs do not override official Wikipedia policies. WP:NOT is an official Wikipedia policy. WP:NOT states that articles that consist only of episode summaries are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, these must be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All The Wikipedia can't possibly be expected to have separate articles for every single episode of every TV show ever made; it would be ridiculous (not to mention the amount of server space required). Thus, allowing these to exist sets this as a precedent. Only the most notable episodes (particulary of highly notable TV shows, think I Love Lucy, Happy Days, etc) should have their own articles. The fact that full episode guides exist for other shows (including Star Trek, which I am a fan of) does not mean that these articles should be kept, rather it indicates those articles should be deleted as well. --The Way 05:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I would say merge all the short ones to lists by season, with redirects that can be someday turned into real articles. --Brianyoumans 07:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per above /Blaxthos 08:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline to vote when so many entries are being block-genocided. Makes it impossible to distinguish between sheep and goats, and renders AfD a mockery -- Simon Cursitor
  • You could just look at each of them, which is what you would have to do anyway if i listed all 30 articles into 30 30 seperate AfDs? --`/aksha 09:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main WP:AFD page suggests listing multiple related pages in a single nomination. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, even with short summaries, the articles cannot sufficiently demonstrate their usefulness nor notability. - SpLoT / ^(talk) 11:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per above /Bobabobaob (14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete Fancruft foolishness. Get this trivial television nonsense out of the encyclopedia L0b0t 14:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I'd like the "stubby" ones merged and the more developed ones either merged or retained separately. In some cases, particular episodes of a show are important enough to fandom that folks want to list details, commentary, allusion to other works, etc. -- and I don't want to rain on that parade. But countless stubs are a pain in the neck, especially when using the random article button. BTW – Has the "mega-genre" of collectable card games, video games and Japanese animation produced a lion’s share of these stubs or is it just my imagination? -House of Scandal 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  They're not the only source of useless stubs (we have country roads, and asteroids, and episodes of current mainstream TV shows, and obscure villages, and every album ever published ever it seems, and obscure pro sports players in every sport you can imagine, any school with at least three students, and many others), but theese are particularly unpopular stubs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and refer to Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project to come up with a solution as to whether these can be merged. When there is an active project working on a group of articles, general AfDs are rarely productive. --Hyperbole 19:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All into season articles with a brief blurb about each episode, which is what should be done for pretty much every television show.--Isotope23 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Alll and expand them into more than just stubs. Otherwise, nominate EVERY single TV show article for deletion. 20:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgecution (talk • contribs) .
  • The nominator isn't arguing for the deletion of all television show articles, or even all television episode articles, for that matter; (s)he is arguing for the deletion of individual episode articles that essentially consist of gussied-up plot summaries. Please don't set up straw man arguments. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete All per SpLoT. (In response to previous comment, I'd happily delete every single-episode TV article unless there is a very clear case for notability). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All and stop deleting info from them! Some of them previously had more than just summaries, like a list of Pokémon, humans, quotes, trivia, and stuff, but people keep removing them! Matty-chan 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it Wikiquote. This is one of the reasons why it might be an idea to merge these articles: once you remove the fansite-like detail inappropriate for Wikipedia (such as trivia sections, lists of Pokemon and humans etc.), there's hardly anything left. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then, exactly they've been saying, delete every episode article on WP. Especially the Family Guy articles for future episodes that have even less info, and also, when you make it not a "indiscriminate collection of info", there's hardly anything left. Matty-chan 10:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comments above make an untenable assertion without even offering an argument for it. Labeling the entry in questions "indiscriminate collection of information," for disposal does not advance the debate, it merely brands this topic for disdain. Let's hear the argument and not the sentiment first. Malangthon 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all into episode list articles. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information states "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." (Emphasis mine.) Redirects can always be undone if somebody decides to contribute something beyond a plot summary, infobox, trivia and quote lists. Extraordinary Machine 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Chacy 23:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All: Needs major work on the pages (Woopert 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC))— Possible single purpose account: Wooper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. (and has been blocked indefintely for being a sock)[reply]
• Merge: I would say is that if minor summaries are created then to avoid wasting them as well as avoid creating too many new pages then I would suggest creating an episode guide that has basic summaries. -Adv193 03:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The nominator makes a very good case for deletion of these items. This is yet another case of wikipedia users taking what should (and already is) included in a list of items and making seperate article for no other reason than to fill a succession box or to have a place to put an infobox template. There is no meaningful content here. As to the goats and sheep: Sumomo mo momo mo momo no uchi. --Kunzite 03:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Plenty of room for expansion as the ones you wisely chose to not AfD show. Not an issue --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The ones he chose not to AFD were, in order, an international incident because it caused epileptic seizures, a special that had a DVD release, and a special controversial in the community because it was a test-bed for a new cast on a decade-old series. They are the exceptions to the rule, and two of them are slated to be merged anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So verify this for me - are the ones listed above, sans the three you mention, all of the Pokemon episodes? The vibe I get is that they aren't, and I don't know much about Pokemon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there are 400-some episodes and the series is still ongoing. They are, however, nearly all of the episode articles still left laying around. (I think he missed a couple that aren't properly categorized and any that might have been made in the meantime.) A while back I deleted a pile as blatant copyvio (copied from a wiki with an incompatible license) and recently many of them have been merged into lists, plus the fact that with 400-something episodes we just never had articles on them all, thank Eris. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I went through the list on this article and this category and looked at each episode. The reason why i listed the articles that are not included in the AfD was to clear up any misunderstandings, since i'm listing just about all of them. If i've missed any, it would be because they haven't been cat and aren't on the pokemon episode list article. --`/aksha 12:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've clarified by recommendation based on this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Articles on individual episodes fall far outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. It's a pity that this stuff wasn't nipped in the bud long ago. --Improv 14:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Mukadderat 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible merge. I'm confused as to why the clear explanation given about the Pokemon project's ongoing merge efforts was ignored by the people who voted to delete. Anyway, these should end up as redirects, not redlinks. Dekimasu 06:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea. AMIB explained that in the first comment here, and i said i'd rest my case. But lots of people started adding votes never the less. --`/aksha 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - great source of information. (Mewtwo4 14:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • User:Mewtwo4 is a indefintely banned sockpuppet of Bobabobabo (talk · contribs), confirmed here. --`/aksha 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They are NOT great sources of information. They are just sentence long synopsis of episodes, that's why they are up for deletion. L0b0t 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Anime: Pocket Monster Problem Inspection Report with Electric Soldier Porygon (keep as it has significant separate notability), delete the rest, except the following: Shaking Island Battle! Dojotchi VS Namazun!! and others of the sort need to be merged with the banned episodes page. Pokémon, I Choose You! (and maybe The Problem with Paras) have significant notability. PKMN anime was one of the most influential imports of the 1990s. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 14:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Interrobamf 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Storng Keep all - alot of series on Wikipedia have seperate pages for the episodes. The articles needs alot of work... (Taiyou-BitetheLung 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  Abusive sockpuppet of Bobabobabo (talk · contribs), established here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we are discussing this AfDnot all the other T.V. articles on Wikipedia. Stick to the matter at hand. L0b0t 16:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep All - Maybe the articles should be expanded beyond mere summaries, but not deleted entirely. Drake.
• Keep All - I agree with Drake, but the pages needs some more more besides a short summary. (Yugigx60 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  Abusive sockpuppet of Bobabobabo (talk · contribs), established here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With regard to the Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes guidelines, I can't agree that it provides an argument for deletion. It suggests a goal which can not necessarily be reached and it does not rule out extended episode development. Malangthon 00:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on Possible Compromise I was thinking, this is an issue that seems to pop up here rather often and needs to become better resolved. Perhaps, rather than a simple total deletion (which is what I currently support) what about having, for television shows with many existing articles on their individual episodes, a number of pages dedicated to each season, rather than one page that has all the summaries (which would be too bulky) or many individual pages for each episode (which is too much and rather impractical)? It seems having the summaries placed in articles that discusses the season they occured in as a whole would be preferable and a good way of compromising what seems to be the two dominant positions here, plus it would have the added benefit of providing context for individual episodes. I also believe, but am not sure, that this is how the articles for the show Lost are set up. --The Way 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what I suggested in the first comment, and it's the consensus already established at WP:PCP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with extreme emphases on not keeping these as individual articles per the existing efforts cited by AMIB. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep All per Starblind. I guess I'd be fine with merging into season articles, if it comes to that. - Lex 06:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - There are alot of other seperate episode pages for different tv series, why can't Pokemon have the same. note Pokemon does not have 500+ episodes , they have 473 episodes Netto-kun (16:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)) — Possible single purpose account: Netto-kun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic (and has been indefintely banned for being a sock)[reply]
  • Very likely another sockpuppet account of User:Bobabobabo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryulong (talk • contribs) 08:34, 28 October 2006 (UCT).
• CommentThis discussion is about only the articles listed in this AfD. Bringing up other television articles is off point. No one is saying that (insert your favorite show) should not have articles, rather that there is a process by which we build those articles. It starts with an article for the show, if the show is notable enough then articles on the seasons of the show, IF the seasons article warrants spinning off individual episode articles then we do that. Please read WP:EPISODE for a more detailed explanation. The articles in this AfD aren't even stubs they all have little beyond a 1 or 2 sentence plot summary. If and when the season articles are developed then we can create articles on the almost 500 episodes. L0b0t 17:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Everyking 18:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, alternatively merge per Ned Scott, these can not remain as individual articles. Combination 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the really short ones and make season summaries (if they don't already exist), Keep the long ones.--Cyberdude93 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - needs work to make it more encyclopedia form. Pokeant (20:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• • THese articles should also be included in the nomination

1. Pokéball Peril
2. The First Pokemon! The Last Battle!!
3. The Pokemon Center is Very Busy!
4. Deciding Match! VS Regice!!
5. Begin! From Futaba Town to Masago Town!!
6. Find Pikachu! Route 202!
7. Meowth Rules!
8. Get the Show on the Road
9. A Ruin with a View
10. Perap and the Pokémon Comedian!
11. Mean With Envy
12. Attack! The Stray Manyula!!
13. The Scuffle of the Legends
14. Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
15. Pacifidlog Jam
16. Eight Ain't Enough

• — Possible single purpose account: Pokeant (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Case by case basis; for those short, stubby ones; merge and redirect relevent info into a season summary. The longer ones need to be merged, redirected, and compressed, but since these episodes are more significant, they should take up more of the season summary. Finally, episodes like Electric Soldier Porygon, which have ample potential to expand outside of plot summary (which they already have, if I'm not mistaken), should stay. Plus, external links to a pokewiki in season articles will work wonders. — Deckiller 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, i agree Electric Soldier Porygon should stay. That's why it's not being listed for deletion. Notice how Electric Soldier Porygon is listed in the "these articles are NOT being included in this AfD" list. --`/aksha 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge (case-by-case) - Many of the articles contain valid information; certainly those with a Controversy section, even if duplicated elsewhere, cannot be said to be "solely plot summaries." However, if the articles cannot be expanded sufficiently (for my suggested qualifications, more than about two paragraphs, or 12 sentences) it may be better to merge them into a more generalized article, such as a "Pokemon Season 1 Episodes" or similar. Please note that by "Merge" I do not mean deleting a certain portion of the article and moving the rest; rather, I mean taking the whole content of each article, as most of the articles are what could be described as the perfect size for sections of a multi-episode article. Additionally, I would like to point out that just because one episode has its own article doesn't mean that every episode needs its own article. While it may look good for the sake of uniformity, I think it is highly possible that out of Season X (or however you want to break it down) only two or three episodes will have enough important content to deserve their own article, which can be linked to from the main episode list. Finally, one more time, for emphasis: no content should be deleted. Moved, perhaps, but it should definitely be retained. -- Y|yukichigai 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, episodes that deserve their own article for whatever unique reasons should get their own article. Notice how i have not simply listed all pokemon articles for deletion. Electric Soldier Porygon, an episode which does deserve its own article for the huge contraversy it caused, is deliberatly not listed. --`/aksha 01:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Bold merging for all. It was done, but then the sockpuppet factory popped up and interfered with all of this.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into articles by season, if not a single article for the entire series. If these were sufficiently notable to have their own articles, we'd be able to write more than a stub for each. Ashibaka tock 00:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Everyking (72.232.215.170 03:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge all by season I entirely agree with Ashibaka -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - all of the episodes needs alot of work. They need to be more encyclopedia form. Starwarsrebel (01:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge most. All banned episodes with Banned episodes of Pokémon, the rest with their respective episode lists. However, keep Pokémon, I Choose You!. It's the first episode of the anime, so it deserves its own article, with some expansion. -Amarkov ^babble 01:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Superlative delete all. Blow the pokecruft out the goddamned airlock. —ptk✰fgs 02:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... was that really necessary? -Amarkov ^babble 02:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without question. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate heap of trivial nonsense. —ptk✰fgs 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "goddamned airlock", not your opinion. -Amarkov ^babble 02:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the pages needs major editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokants (talk • contribs)

• — Possible single purpose account: Pokants (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. (and has been blocked as a sock of User:Pokeant) Luna Santin 03:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all fails WP:NOT in terms of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is all just fancruft hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some These episodes should be keep: Pokémon I Choose You!, Pokémon Emergency!, Ash Catches A Pokémon, Showdown in Pewter City, The Path to the Pokémon League, Island of the Giant Pokémon, The Problem with Paras, Who, What, When, Where, Wynaut?, Shaking Island Battle! Dojotchi VS Namazun!!, Saved by the Beldum & The Ice Cave!.

Please delete these instead of reverting them.

1. Pokéball Peril
2. Beauty and the Beach
3. The First Pokemon! The Last Battle!!
4. The Pokemon Center is Very Busy!
5. Deciding Match! VS Regice!!
6. Begin! From Futaba Town to Masago Town!!
7. Find Pikachu! Route 202!
8. Meowth Rules!
9. Get the Show on the Road
10. A Ruin with a View
11. Perap and the Pokémon Comedian!
12. Mean With Envy
13. Attack! The Stray Manyula!!
14. The Scuffle of the Legends
15. Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
16. Pacifidlog Jam
17. Eight Ain't Enough

Ragnaroknike 06:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the articles that were already merged. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong merge. The relevant WikiProject has reached a decision. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 06:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep BrenDJ 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Would you care to provide a reason for that? Because this isn't a vote. -Amarkov ^babble 23:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all, or delete. Most TV episode articles are completely unnecessary, containing only plot summaries and the cast (which is 99% identical from one episode to another). A TV series can be much better described in a series of season's articles, where you get all the relevant info together. This is a well-reasoned nomination, and I would support the deletion but for the announced merge effort by the project, which is admirable and hopefully will be a much followed precedent. Fram 09:11, 30 October 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.