Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references in Pokémon (2nd nomination)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus - default to keep (10 keep, 18 delete) Jtkiefer  T - 23:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cultural references in Pokémon
Went through a AfD already, having a no consensus result. The article hasn't improved any, and in my opinion, continues to be worthless. I also feel that the previous AfD was too muddled by people's preset perceptions about Pokémon articles, fearing that cutting off one head would make it grow back a thousand-fold. Coolkat's accusations of sockpuppetry didn't help the matter any. With that in mind, I threw this back into AfD so we could reach a consensus, hopefully without wrongful impressions or accusations of sockpuppetry. Apostrophe 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion can be found here.
 * Speedy Keep no reason to AfD again just 2 weeks after the last time. Same reasons for keeping as before. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just explained why I did so in my original text. The first one was such a clusterfuck of Coolkat's accusations and people's implusive reactions to Pokémon articles that it needed a second go to achieve an actual decision bereft of such influences. --Apostrophe 01:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Last time, the AFD went down to no consensus, with a plurality of delete votes. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see a majority; it just wasn't large enough to be taken as consensus on Wikipedia. Plurality isn't possible when people only pick one of two choices. --Apostrophe 19:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN. There are cultural references in every piece of fiction in existence, Wikipedia is not a proper catalogue for such minutiae. (Now if these were "Significant cultural references TO Pokemon"...) Anetode 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You mean List of Pokémon references or spoofs? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Anetode and WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia and information. &hearts;purplefeltangel (talk) &hearts; (Contributions) 00:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Purplefeltangel. Jaxl | talk 00:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Starblind, wikipedia is not paper, and the point of having an encyclopedia at all, which is to help users understand the world. Kappa 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider a list of cultural refereces in Pokémon all that pertinent to understanding one's world, Kappa. --Apostrophe 01:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, OR. Kappa apparently cannot understand anything in the world without help from Wikipedia.  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey now, I disagree with Kappa too, but NPA, eh? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sarcastic but not really a personal attack. The "sum total of human knowledge" or derivatives of to justify a %100 keep-vote ratio (which I assume Kappa has) does wear a little thin. Marskell 13:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * NPA: Kappa has cast a couple of "delete" votes and "merge per (actual policy reference}" votes just in the last week.  Not 100 percent "keep", although I suspect there have been months in 2005 where all Kappa's votes were "keep" or "keep or merge somewhere".  More bothersome was the way so many were "keep all XXX" or "keep, real YYY" in ways that didn't correspond to WP policies nor precedents.  Improvement noted lately.  Barno 02:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 04:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the way this kind of information should be presented, merged together in a list. The presence of this article prevents the creation of articles on individual cultural references. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I see the fear of a Pokémon hydra still persists. Sigh. --Apostrophe 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A similar list (by the same author, to boot), Grudges in the Pokémon anime, was recently deleted, and no swarm of stubs took its place. Also, if you look at the history of this article, it isn't a compilation of merged stubs. If this were to be deleted, no swarm of stubs would take its place. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Pieces of fiction do make cultural references, but the number of cultural references in some of them is staggering enough to warrant their own article, and I believe Pokémon is one of them, after looking through the list. Putting all of them in the Pokémon (anime) article could make that article unnecessarily large and narrow down it's scope by putting too much focus on one part of the subject. A.K.R. 12:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that I have went ahead and cleaned up the article. Quality of article should no longer be an issue. A.K.R. 10:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion. -- Reinyday, 13:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the page says "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion." The Cultural References article is also not verifiable. &hearts; purplefeltangel ( talk ) &hearts; ( contribs ) 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why not? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why keep it? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, current policy puts the onus on the deleters to give a reason. ··gracefool |&#9786; 07:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Pokémon may have more cultural references than other series but this is due to the gigantic size of the franchise; its density of cultural references per episode/megabyte/cuddly toy/etc is probably relatively small. --Last Malthusian 15:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Barring the addition to references to, say, cultural studies professors making the connections the article makes, delete as original research. &mdash; mendel &#9742; 17:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Crufty Original Research. Transwiki this to Cruft-o-pedia. Karmafist 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Stare Decisis (Keep) per Starblind. Too soon.  -- Plutor 17:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete-Junk. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:16 Pm EST
 * Delete: What the heck? It is a cultural reference?  Any reference is "cultural."  The thing is all cultural reference, as is any work of fiction.  Pure fancruft: this is known to, enjoyable by, and comprehensible for those who are already fans of the thing.  It is a cutting up and repasting of the thing in a hundred patterns merely for their pleasure.  Geogre 18:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, pokecruft, original research, not encyclopedic, not verifiable. Fails to help me understand my world which is non-fictional (except for government pronouncements).  Barno 19:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pokecruft --Aranda56 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It would have been better if this re-nomination had waited, for the simple reason that the niomination would be more likely to go through. This page is, however, absolutely worthless. Statements like Poliwag nearly unable to move on land - For a while after birth, the tadpoles (young frogs/toads) live in and breathe through (with gills) the water, before developing legs that let them move on land, much like Poliwag and Poliwhirl and Ash passes on prune juice - Prunes are said to set off bowel movements, because of its high fiber content, which is why many people don't eat prunes belie the idea that this is remotely worthy. Sabine's Sunbird 22:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Get rid of it. As above. --Carnildo 22:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, again. Most of the references are obvious, and the non-obvious pop-culture or historical references in Pokémon are mentioned in the relevant articles/lists for the character, Pokémon, or place in question. Catch-all lists of random trivia are not encyclopedic material. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I've never seen a Pokemon and probably never will, but this is a well written and harmless article. The legitimacy of the renomination is debatable. CalJW 05:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Starblind and I dislike the use of AfD for cleanup. --Celestianpower hab 12:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup for what? --Apostrophe 21:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While NN seems to be the consensus for the delete vote, I'd actually point to OR. Marskell 13:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I included OR in my argument for deletion. ;)  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I guess a few people did. Karmafist even called it "Crufty Original Research." Indeed. Marskell 06:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll claim Delete under the "loosely related collection of trivia" clause, and with a dash of OR. kelvSYC 03:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Loosely related collection of trivia for sure. You keepers really, really disappoint me. / Peter Isotalo 03:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh Lord. Not merely a bad idea, a bad idea badly executed. Delete. --Calton | Talk 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of the delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked or, not  . It's verifiable, wiki isn't paper and it doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |&#9786; 07:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How do you intend to verify the intent of the localization team? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally frequent a Pokémon fan forum, and many people there who knows a lot about the animé can verify the information. Also, I see that many of the reasons brought up by the pro-deletion camp can be resolved by rewriting and expanding the article, something I'm prepared to do so. There are many other references not mentioned by the author; just go take a look at . This shows that the article has potential for expansion. A.K.R. 09:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Another thing I wish to add: it seems like that Pokémon articles suffer from some sort of prejudice by many Wikipedians around here. Why is it that The Simpsons gets such a large, thorough article, with so many accompanying articles (including one article for each episode), while the similar-sized, if not larger Pokémon franchise gets a considerably smaller article with less accompanying articles to boot? Also, think about the stubs; why is it that sometimes, there are several, countless stubs taking a place of a deleted Pokémon article? I feel that such a phenomon occurs because some useful articles that require only a cleanup or rewrite gets deleted by overzealous Wikipedians who see Pokémon as something triva. Deleting them is as good as dispersing the information into several different stubs, only to be brought together again, and then to go through another deletion process and the cycle repeats until a culture of fear of deletion surrounding Pokémon articles is created (let me stress that the last bit is my own personal observation). Instead, Pokémon articles which are large enough to warrant their own article, while stubs that have the potential to become one, should be expanded if the subject scope is wide enough, or to be merged with other stubs to form one article if it is not. A.K.R. 09:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "...who see Pokémon as something triva." This is trivia. NN, OR trivia. Do you see that "cultural references in..." can't not be OR (unless perhaps people have started writing theses about it)? Marskell 09:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then, on the same scale, should The Simpsons be considered "triva" too? I'm also not sure what you are referring to as "triva" - is it Pokémon itself, or is it this article? A.K.R. 10:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a list of loosely associated topics, point #2 under "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Granted, it's factually debatable if this list fits that description, but if you absolutely need a policy cite, there you go. In reply to other comments, the idea of adding information to articles about movies, games, characters, places, etc. to increase their relevance to the real world, including links to pop culture or history, is a great one, and I would love to see (for example) A.K.R. expand the heck out of the Pokémon movie articles; they need it, badly. I welcome any effort to lend greater context to Pokémon (or any other) articles. That said, this particular list is forever going to be unhelpful to those who want to learn how the Pokémon anime or movies are localized into English, because inherent to lists of trivia is a lack of description or overview. Most of what's here already should instead be an integrated part of the articles/list entries for the characters in question or movies in question, as examples reinforcing description of the subject. (For example, the fact that Ash turns down prune juice is in and of itself a useless fact, even with an explanation of the joke, but it would make a fine example to support a statement in Pokémon (anime) along the lines of "Much of the humor in the English-language adaptation of the anime is the sort of mild, youth-oriented humor common to childrens' cartoons." (This is a crappy example, but you get my point.) This list is an example of why lists of trivia, either as standalone articles or as sections of larger articles, are unencyclopedic; they do not help the reader reach an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, but instead simply arm the reader with bits of data. If someone wants to rewrite Pokémon (anime), using examples from this list to explain how the Pokémon anime's English-language localization is Americanized, that would be absolutely fantastic. Barring that, this list is just a list of fannish factoids, un-linked-to, mostly obvious, largely contextless, and almost entirely valueless. The little information of value in this list belongs in (and, by and large, is already in) other articles. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 13:19, 27 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.