Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon ability
Hold up! Where does it cite sources?  Why should this article be allowed to ignore , , and  when all other articles must follow them?  While I can respect the feelings that some of the other editors have completely, the fact of the matter is that this AfD is not about censorship or picking favorites or suggesting that pokemon isn't important to children or such. It is about if the Article can pass all of Wikipedia's rules.  Let me help out a bit so the people new to wikipedia  understand.  The real problem with this article is that it doesn't follow the three pillars of wikipedia. An article must be |Verifiable through multiple, reliable, reputable, independent, third-party sources. It must not be |original research, which means there have to be sources to back up the claims of the author(s) and all information provided in the article.  It must also have a |neutral point-of-view and not show bias. As a guideline for the above rules, an article must |cite it's information with |reliable sources and be must be |encyclopaedic. This article fails to meet , sections of  (if not all of OR), does not follow the guideline of  or . Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. This article must cite ''multiple, reliable, secondary, independent of the organization, non-trivial, third-party sources such as books, magazines, and papers that have national and/or international coverage.'' The articles must be based, or completely focused on just pokemon (and in this case, the powers).  Just a mention in passing is not acceptable (as it is concidered a trivial source...even if it is in the New York Times...the source isn't trivial, but the coverage by the source was). So far no one has shown that there are reliable secondary sources that fit this criteria for this article. '''|Wikipedia:Verifiability''' is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policies. The other two are |Wikipedia:No original research and |Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (as explained above). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. In essence, please explain why this article should be allowed to not follow  when all other articles must. While we know that pokemon is Verifiable, where are the New York Times, Washington Post, or CBS nightly news report on the pokemon abilities? I hope this helps understand my take on this discussion
— User:Bschott, 07:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:ENC||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Verifiability)