Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokemon Phenomena

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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a common enough term to need its own article. Perhaps add a footnote to Pokemon describing the Phenomena. NickSentowski 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 19:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if WP:NOR truly applies, I'm thinking more along the lines of WP:V. - NickSentowski 19:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; .... WP:NOR applies. PJM 19:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification, I didn't quite get that portion of it! - NickSentowski 19:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. WP:V and WP:NOR swim in the same pool, if you will. PJM 20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but more along the lines of WP:N. (Well, WP:N is not a policy, but this is certainly non-notable, and would be even if it was verifiable.) —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 29 April 2006 @ 03:14 UTC
• Delete, it looks like something somebody wrote, and I particularly don't see any use in merging it either. :( Toastypk 17:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no real reason for this, and prob. fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Chris Chan {t|c} 02:20, 30 April 2006 (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.