Wikipedia talk:Pokémon test

Karen (Pokémon)

You know, all these doofy minor human characters in Pokémon are slated to be merged; it's just that there's so many of them that it's slow going.

If you want a long-lasting example, I would suggest sticking with Bellsprout; I don't think I'll be able to get that merged any time soon, unlike Karen (Pokémon). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Credit?

Some credit would have been nice, you know. User:Hiding/Pokemon test. Hiding Talk 21:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN

I wrote this essay and I'll keep it the way I like, thanks

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the page histories. That should solve any issues over credit, and I note that Matt suggested this on the 21 December 2005, 21:32 (UTC so I can't see him objecting. Hiding Talk 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Examples of the Pokémon test in action

Have the quoted users been asked permission to post their usages of the Pokémon test? If not, it may cause offense to be taken. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• They licensed them under the GFDL. Hiding Talk 18:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw Man

Might this be seen as a version of the Straw Man logical fallacy? humblefool® 02:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, yes, and also argumentum ad odium. Articles should stand on their own; one should neither keep an article because we have similar articles, nor delete an article because we do not have similar articles. Judge on merit, not principle. >Radiant< 14:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain

I'm still not clear why each of the 493 Pokemon characters seems to be exempt from the notability requirements for verifiable, reliable independent sources which are cited to justify the deletion of articles everyday in AfDs, such as (recently) college choral groups, churches, professors, books, authors, other persons living or dead. The articles cite sources showing that the Pokemon franchise overall is notable, but for individual characters, all I see are original research where someone has noted things themselves, and game guides from the vendor of the franchise. Notability of the franchise does not automatically confer notability on each thing related to it. Why do Pokemon characters get a pass? Is it just ILIKEIT? Is it exemot from demonstrating sources to show notability because there is a project?Edison 15:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this isn't the best place to discuss this! This talk page is to discuss changes to the Pokémon Test essay, which is written about the phenomenon that each Pokémon has its own article. You might have better luck discussing this at the Pokémon Collaborative Project's talk page, which is where a lot of people concerned with and focused on Pokémon articles discuss such things.

In the past, actually, your issue has arisen several times recently in the PCP. The problem was that even if we did decide to merge the Pokémon articles, there didn't seem to be a practical method of merging them. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, that was funny. Wow, I'm in awe, Señor Dilbeck. ;) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See this first discussion and a later discussion from the PCP for more about this. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Drake & Josh test

Look at the multitude of Drake & Josh related articles, eg. Treehouse (Drake & Josh episode). If ever a range of articles brought Wikipedia to shame, those articles do, even more so than the Pokémon articles do. --Ezeu 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, how embarrassing! I think that hardly deserves its own article! Look at the airdate: "January 21th, 2007". lol --Brandon Dilbeck 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon test may soon be moot

Last month, there was this (now archived) discussion at the Pokémon Collaborative Project. The discussion was mainly about the questionable notability of nearly all of the Pokémon species and that much of the material in the articles should be considered cruft. A proportion of the members of the WikiProject are convinced that all the articles about Pokémon should be merged, and to that effect, a prototype merged list was created. This activity precisely counters the argument of the Pokémon test. It is interesting that many people may continue to cite the Pokémon test in AfD discussions without realizing how increasingly doubtful the notablilty of each Pokémon is. I just thought that this might be an interesting point to add to the essay. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• The pokemon test has in fact been moot for quite some time, as it is essentially an example of WP:AADD (e.g. "otherstuffexists" and so forth). >Radiant< 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Month after month even Pokemon fans admit that the 493 individual fictional creatures lack the multiple independent sources needed to establish notability, yet month after month there are 493 long individual articles written based on original research from people watching the cartoons, or from the game guides published by the franchize owner (hardly independent) or from fans' websites (not reliable). And every month articles about schools, manufacturing companies, public libraries, shopping malls and college choral groups are summarily deleted because they lack sources meeting WP:ATT to shown their encyclopedic notability. And still people grumble when anyone says "How come we keep all these Pokemon articles without meeting basic standards fort what belongs in an encyclopedia?" Pokemons only satisfy the "ILIKEIT" standard.Edison 13:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If you truly believe that, I'd suggest you nominate a few random Pokearticles for deletion. Wikipedia works by consensus, after all. >Radiant< 13:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, maybe not more than one. No need to flood the system to make a WP:POINT, after all. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there a collection of outcomes of AFDs for pokemons? If fans who usuallu don't watch deletion debates come swooping in to say KEEP like fans of other projects do (sometimes in response to canvassing via newsletters or IRC alerts) then they would all be kept. If they were judged on their merits in accord with WP:N or WP:ATT then only the more notable would be kept. And I expect the nominator might be castigated for WP:POINT or for disruptive editing, however justified the nom. Touch someone's hobby and you touch a hornet's nest. Edison 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Everything is someone's hobby. I seriously doubt you'd be castigated or anything. A long time ago I made a proposal to merge pokemon stubs, and the reaction by pokemon-fans was generally very nice and constructive, and this resulted in many pokearticles being improved. Compare this with the nastiness that used to occur when anyone nominated a school article for deletion, I think you'll see that, ironically and unexpectedly, pokemon-fans are more civil and mature than people who go to school. >Radiant< 08:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Er, in any case, the Pokemon creature articles are getting merged soon (for the most part). Regardless that the Pokemon Test was moot from the beginning, should it at least be noted on this page that the 493 articles will soon be reduced in less-than-half? You Can't See Me! 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I still count almost 400 articles under Category:Pokémon species by generation. Any update on the merger proposal? --Dystopos 15:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I thought of this myself too. The Pokemon articles are in limbo right now, with lists of Pokemon and lots of merging going on.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

When we have a picture like , something must be... well...Marlith ^T/C 03:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Examples = good?

Aside from the fact that most similar pages do not have random citations of arbitrary users that mention the page, the quotes are probably misleading in that I suspect at least two of the quoted users of sarcasm here. I'd be in favor of removing them. Why do you need an example of citing a page anyway? We all know how to cite pages. >Radiant< 08:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes some sense, I dunno... Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons argument

I've noticed from time to time that in deletion discussions people sometimes tend to make an argument very similar to the Pokemon test, referencing the fact that every episode of The Simpsons has it's own argument. Is there grounds for mention? Calgary 06:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not particularly. I can think of any number of sets, fictional or no, each element of which has its own article. >Radiant< 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Despite concerns about WP:BEANS, looking at some well know things that COULD have articles for each element: Rock, paper, scissors: no game-specific articles on the three possible things a player can throw: Zero for three. Monopoly (game): No articles for the various properties and squares, except so far as they have real world bases, such as "jail" or "Reading Railroad." Zero for forty. Tarot: Articles for each of the 21 "trump cards" or Major arcana. No articles for each of the 56 "minor arcana" cards. Playing cards: Eight articles for face cards by name and for suits, but as for specific cards only found Ace of spades. No overall coverage such as articles for "5 of clubs" or "Queen of Hearts." So 1 out of 52 possible articles. So in these other realms, even though the game itself (or the deck of cards) is extremely notable, this has not led to methodically creating a stub article for each element, even though such articles could be equipped with little succession boxes to say what card comes before and after the 5 of clubs, however satisfying it can be to keep creating such articles (kind of like knitting one row after another). This is even though references in print and in popular culture could be found for most any card: "5 of clubs" gets 11,800 Google hits, has 463 articles in Google news archive [1], 113 refs in Google books [2], and 40 refs in Google scholar [3]. The implication would be to have articles only for the more notable Pokemons, which have substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources, but that the notability of the overall franchise does not imply notability for each element of the set, and that the encyclopedia can get along fine with a list or table such as there is for Monopoly properties and playing cards. Edison 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a funny list, but pretty much irrelevant (of course I could counter with such things as "every single nobel prize winner", "every single naturally-occuring atom" and "every single village in the USA", scoring 100% out of however much).
    • What actually matters is how much information is available on the topic; we merge overly short perma-stubs into lists. One can write a lot more about any random Simpsons episode than about any random playing card. >Radiant< 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
      • The arbitrarily chosen sets I looked at are not comparable to chemical elements, each of which unquestionably has journal articles, books and chapters in chemistry books written about them, or Nobel prize winners(ditto). Nor is it comparable to villages, which have no notable superset. Someone created a bot which made an article for every present US village and hamlet, and people brought in articles from the 1911 Brittanica about practically every then-existing village in the world. By analogy, we could create articles about every hamlet thet ever existed in the world (since notability is permanent), even if it became a ghost town in 1850. The things I looked at are cases where the superset is notable, but not all of the set member are notable enough to have articles, like Pokemons. (edited)Edison 17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
        • • Yes, and the point remains that what actually matters is how much information is available on the topic; we merge overly short perma-stubs into lists. >Radiant< 07:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wha?!

What Is the POKEMON IN THIS WIKIPEDIA?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper (talk • contribs) 07:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

horizontal bar

This essay implies it is a fallacy to set up equal standards, but gave no reasons. Honestly, who'd really agree to an essay that says "once upon a time, this idiot used the Pokemon test, and then this other idiot used it too. The moral of the story is that equal standards are wrong." 173.180.202.22 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This page makes no sense

Why are each of the cited examples regarding sometihng that is WAAAAAY less notable then any Pokemon? For example: a stop on a train line?! And this doesn't even appear to be referencing a large train line, like Chicago, but rather some small train line in a non-major city and each individual stop on that line. Even in Chicago or New York, there is hardly anything notable about most individual subway stops. Yet, walk into a room of 100 people, and 100 of those people will have heard of Pikachu, 99 will have heard of Nidoran, and at least half will have heard of any random Pokemon from Gen1 or Gen2. The amount of people who will have heard of this train stop, unless they both live in that town AND frequently take that train from that line, will be 0. All of the other examples are similarly extremely less notable then Pokemon. If these are the common types of arguments that are made, where anyone reading the comment can clearly see that they are referring to something obscure or something far less well know then the "other article" they invoke as reasoning for it, then this article explaining that is not at all necessary, because, well, anyone reading it will automatically know that their argument is not legitimate due to the citing of a far more famous thing in their alleged "comparison".                     ~Rayvn  11:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

• Oh yeah, I mean who has heard of Penn Station, or Grand Central? Or Kings Cross for that matter? I mean, compared to Nidoran - ESPECIALLY if you walk into a room at Poke-Con! However, in the real world (that many humans inhabit), Kings Cross is just ever so slightly more famous than Nerdoran. Surveying a room full of imaginary people exactly like yourself is a poor way to get any kind of perspective. This kind of argument really illustrates how Wikipedia's deletion policy is so infamously poor and overly-aggressive. Drcchutch (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn due to unanimous opposition (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Pokémon test → User:Hiding/Pokémon test – Any attempt to delete this page failed due to the historical significance of the Pokémon test in Wikipedia's early years. Thus it is unlikely this page will ever be totally removed, but at the same time the issue remains that it is confusing to users, many of whom ignore the "inactive" part and take it as proof that individual Pokémon are not notable (because "Pokémon test" implies that you are judging a non-notable article against an equivalently non-notable yet still existing Pokémon article). Since this essay does not reflect current consensus, which is that Pokémon should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, it should, per WP:ESSAY, be userfied to show that. User:Hiding and others have also expressed support for this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I personally do not see any issue with keeping it as is. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is nothing wrong with this page being in WP space. -- Whpq (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per the just-closed MfD. Fine to have this kind of historical stuff in projectspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This is historically significant enough that it should remain in Wikipedia space. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose This essay just describes the historical context of the Pokemon test, rather than endorsing it. That makes it in line with current consensus, so there's no reason to userfy it. In general, I don't think that pieces of Wikipedia history and lore should be hidden away in userspace either just because a few people make bad arguments without reading the page they're citing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. As an editor who has read this essay but not seen it raised in AfD discussions, it's not clear to me what the scope of the problem is. WP:ESSAY does quote as policy, “Essays…that overtly contradict consensus, belong in the user namespace” but I find it wishy-washy on exactly when an essay must be userfied or removed. The essay itself very clearly describes a historical approach. Editors misunderstand and misapply policies, essays, etc. all the time and it generally sorts itself out.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wikipedia:User pages#User pages that look like project pages given its widely used or at least has been. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With the AfD over, there's still the elephant in the room: this isn't really an Essay

Despite being labeled as such, the article in itself is clearly a historical insight into the goings on of things at that time on wikipedia. However, it also reflects a very different time on the site and is over 15 years old now. Additionally, it's neither offering advice nor opinion, but instead seems to be being used as a hammer against one particular genre of character articles on the site which I doubt was the original intention, and the Essay tag seems to take precedence over the Historical tag when people consider it's usage.

So while there is consensus to not delete the article, what could/should be done to rectify this issue while? Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

What issue? This is an essay providing historical insight. There is no need to remove the essay tag. As with any misapplication of essays, policy, guidelines etc, other editors in the discussion where it is used can point out its inapplicability. -- Whpq (talk) 04:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

But what insight is it providing the scope of current guidelines? Even above people have pointed out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS effectively replaced it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's historical. It doesn't have to provide insight into today's Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not seeing any elephants. This page will have exactly as much weight without the essay tag as it does with the essay tag, and anyone citing it as an argument to keep/delete something will be exactly as wrong to do so. That said, if it'll make folks feel better, I don't think the essay tag is really doing anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some clarification on the page that this should not be used as an argument against an article based on current notability guidelines? Because I feel just because we're agreeing "they're wrong" doesn't mean folks will stop doing it. For some people, that needs to be spelled out in text.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

People use bad reasons at XFD all the time, and we trust closers to weigh them accordingly. Citing an essay is really just shorthand for using the arguments contained in the essay, so I don't think it's really an issue. The essay itself makes it pretty clear that this is not in line with current consensus, but if enough people use arguments like this the consensus can change. There might be room for adding something to WP:ATA, but I'm not seeing a pressing need here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an issue. It isn't how it works in the real world. Nonsensical comments such as "Keep Passes Wikipedia:Pokémon test" are read by administrators as contributing to a consensus and it worsens the decision-making. We trust the closers to get a "sense of the group" primarily. Administrators work with what they have. If they have a bad discussion, they need to work with it. When the "per POKETEST" comment appears, the discussion becomes worse, and the administrator's job becomes harder. —Alalch E. 01:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

the use of "it's" as the possessive form of "it" hurts me on a spiritual level. that aside, should note for the sake of anyone reading this later on that alalch just up and removed the essay tag. i kind of disagree with doing this while those discussions are going on, but not by enough to actually opine against it cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 19:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, but clarifications to the notice atop the page (some of which have already been made) may be less controversial than an outright move. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Pokémon test → Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Pokémon test – And, following the move:

• List in Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability
• Do not retarget WP:POKETEST, WP:PTEST, WP:KIT, and WP:KAREN to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Pokémon test; instead:
• Soft redirect Wikipedia:Pokémon test to Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability/Pokémon test, and let the shortcut pages continue to target this then-soft redirect
• And a notice at the soft redirect that there had been content at this name which had been cited as an essay but it was in fact never an essay and should not be cited as an argument in discussions—similar in form (as a soft redirect, meaning soft redirect + notice) Wikipedia:PORNBIO, Wikipedia:Don't be a dick ...

This page is not an essay. It is marked as essay, and it should not be. It is a summary of historical discussions, arguments and other activities during a specific period. Whenever this is cited as an essay, that's only causes confusion.

This page is naturally one of the Wikipedia:Historical archive/Policy/Notability pages. It also fits within the timeframe, being created in 2006. Doing this would make the Wikipedia historical archive on notability better. —Alalch E. 01:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 15:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

See WP:HISPAGES for a guideline about such pages. Historical pages are kept as records of past Wikipedia processes to give context to historical discussions and to inform future discussions on similar topics. HISPAGES links to Wikipedia:Historical archive, which is is a co-ordination point for pages that were previously in the Wikipedia: namespace [sic], but have become obsolete and archived. (However, the historical archive itself is in the Wikipedia namespace and all subpages thereof that, prior to being seen as historical, were in the Wikipedia namespace do remain in the Wikipedia namespace once they are incorporated into the historical archive.) Another page that links to is is Wikipedia:History of Wikipedian processes and people. —Alalch E. 01:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Same as the past several discussions. We have historical documents all over projectspace, not just in the "Historical archive". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Sometimes it is better to put them in the archive, because it's also good for the archive, and here, an essay tag isn't appropriate because it causes superficial readers to think that the page makes a point when it doesn't, it's just a historical record. —Alalch E. 08:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support I'm going to be frank, given we've had 3 back to back discussions on this on this page, even though they spawned from the AfD, supports that there is some concern among multiple established editors due to their experience with this article's usage. Simply saying "other editors are wrong if they use it wrong" is effectively sweeping a problem under the rug. This helps maintain its historical use while fitting the examples Alalach has given.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No, it's pointing out that the problem isn't this page. What happens next, when people start linking to from deletion discussions at its new location? It will be equally wrong. No difference. It's simply a silly reason to try to move something. WP:STICK. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Can you think of any other essay on here that is misused as frequently or as crudely as this one? If there was a case of it happening often enough with others I would agree, but I feel like this is the one people grab to confirm a bias against particular content on the site.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

      not quite an essay, but would pandora fit the bill? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

      yes, especially because I hardly ever see this one used, except as a cultural reference. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the strong rejection of the last 2 (extremely recent) discussions on this, and WP:STICK. This is getting ridiculous. If there's essays you don't like, don't use them. Create counter-point ones. There's other things you can do to approach this. This isn't it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  What's ridiculous is your comment and your lack of engaging with the argument. How do I create a counterpoint essay to a true recording of history, to a page which is itself an archive: Write a fictionalized account of history? —Alalch E. 08:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  You really can't wrap your head around an "Actually, don't cite the POKETEST in AFDs" essay? Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  If the essay is detrimental enough to the point that we have to write an entirely separate essay on why the other one is bad, and it's unanimously agreed that this is the case, then I really don't see why it should remain tagged the way it is if all it's going to do is cause unnecessary problems. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  There are plenty of conflicting/counterpoint essays out there. WP:TIND and WP:TIAD. I dont particularly think TIAD is good advice, but I handle that by...not citing it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the others -- Whpq (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. This retains the information while also making it so this historical summary isn't being misused going forward. I'm a bit confused by the hostility of some above accounts since the nominator's points are valid and none of this information is being lost, so there's no threat of deletion, and the Test can still be linked to. Additionally, STICK doesn't quite apply here given a large chunk of the previous MfD's members were arguing for some form of action to be taken, showing there is still some room for discussion to occur as to what exactly should happen with this essay. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

is "close so y'all can get some sleep" a valid vote? this should probably be opened again in a month or two imo. maybe the currently-categorized-as-an-essay page can be ironed out a little in the meantime, but three discussions back to back (and spin it on the back) seems a bit excessive cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose no reason to have it as a sub page, its still used today AFAIK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Crouch, Swale: its still used today AFAIK How exactly? That's kind of the problem being pointed out: according to consensus, it shouldn't be being used in discussions and is just supposed to be historical.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Its used at WP:WAX. Why is it a problem being left at a main page rather than a subpage? I didn't think historical things were moved to sunpages anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
      • I apologize, I misunderstood. The mindset with moving it is to indicate that the argument in itself is obsolete (as its an inferior version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and to help reduce those misusing it as a deletion reasoning for Pokemon articles). This discussion was also done before some editing was done to the article to reinforce that it shouldn't be used as such.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - should use Template:Superseded and direct our readers to page that is viable for use. No point trying to hide it....just direct readers to the proper place. Should do what is best to help editors find validated information.Moxy🍁 02:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support No "historical value" is conferred by leaving it in the Wikipedia namespace. That implies it is something akin to a guideline. It should be moved to a holding area such as this if it is to be preserved for historical reasons only. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.