Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intentional Names of Pokémon

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. - Turnstep 15:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Pokecruft, this entire chart is stated in the lists of Pokemon, making this article mostly a fork. Unnecessary.--Zxcvbnm 21:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is already a category under Pokémon :: Colin Keigher 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. PJM 11:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. "Intended name?" WP can't read minds, folks... I doubt this has been published anywhere. Mangojuice 12:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR concerns above. Just zis Guy you know? 13:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete redundant M1ss1ontomars2k4 14:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote, but "intentional name" is not good English. If the list is abandoned, then the commentary on naming convention should be merged somewhere. Peter Grey 14:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable original research. JIP | Talk 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Stifle (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately,Delete, I think the japanese names are already on each creature's page. And if anyone says pokecruft again, I swear to god... Toastypk 17:31, 29 April 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.